W&M ScholarWorks W&M ScholarWorks

Reports

1989

Development and implementation of a catch and effort data Development and implementation of a catch and effort data

collection system for monitoring trends in fishing success on collection system for monitoring trends in fishing success on

Virginia's artificial fishing reefs, 1987-1988 : for the period January Virginia's artificial fishing reefs, 1987-1988 : for the period January

1, 1988 - December 31, 1988 1, 1988 - December 31, 1988

Jon A. Lucy Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Charles G. Barr Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports

Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Lucy, J. A., & Barr, C. G. (1989) Development and implementation of a catch and effort data collection system for monitoring trends in fishing success on Virginia's artificial fishing reefs, 1987-1988 : for the period January 1, 1988 - December 31, 1988. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports/2761

This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu.

Project Completion Report (Year Two of Two-Year Project)

Wallop-Breaux Project Number F-63-R (Sport Fish Restoration Act Fund)

Title:

Development and Implementation of a Catch and Effort Data Collection System for Monitoring Trends

\J\rnS SH d~~

\/5 L'i 3 1qiq

in Fishing Success on Virginia's Artificial Fishing Reefs, 1987-1988

For the Period: January l, 1988 - December 31, 1988 (Work Period Extended to March 31, 1989

Principal Investigator Mr. Jon A. Lucy, Marine Recreation Specialist

Department of Marine Advisory Services

Graduate Assistant Charles G. Barr

Department of Marine Advisory Services

Virginia Institute of Marine Science School of Marine Science

College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

Submitted to: Virginia Marine Resources Commission

P.O. Box 756 Newport News, Virginia 23607

William A. Pruitt, Commissioner

September 1989

~--.............

/ LIBRARY °\. (, of the \

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE \ I I

\ of / ''\MARINE SCIENCE;

·, ,,I

.. ,~--- .,-'"';/

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVE

METHODS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ii

1

2

2

General Sampling Program for Lower Chesapeake Bay and Offshore Wreck 4 Fishing Sites

Special Sampling Program for Gwynn Island Test Reef Site 5

Data Collected and Analysis 7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 9

Sample Population of Fishermen 9

General Sampling Program for Lower Chesapeake Bay and Offshore Sites 10

Catch Patterns 12

Quality Ratings of Fishing Experiences 24

Special Sampling Program for Gwynn Island Test Reef 28

Catch Patterns 30

Quality Rating of Fishing Experiences

Gwynn Island Test Reef, Lower Bay and Offshore Sites

Comparing 1987 Study Results with Monitoring Study

CONCLUSIONS

FIGURE

TABLES

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

i

33

34

37

38

41

42

83

85

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Wallop-Breaux funds supporting this project were matched by state

funds from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), School of Marine

Science of the College of William and Mary. In addition, some limited

activities assisting the project were funded through VIMS Sea Grant Marine

Advisory Services Program, e.g. some of the travel to fishing club meetings,

marinas, and meetings on artificial reef research and management issues.

Discussions of the study with persons at meetings of the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission's Artificial Reef Advisory Committee and the

Fourth International Conference on Artificial Habitats for Fisheries were

particularly beneficial in evaluating the study's results. Some of the

preliminary findings of the study were shared with participants in the

latter meeting as part of a conference poster session on Virginia's

Artificial Reef Program lead by Mr. Michael Meier, Fisheries Reef Manager

for the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC).

Mr. Meier of the VMRC was particularly helpful in discussing various

aspects of the study throughout the project and readily supplied names of

fishermen to the researchers for inclusion in the study's sample population

of reef fishermen. Mr. Jack Travelstead, Head of VMRC's Fisheries Division

was also most helpful through his role as administrator of Virginia's

"marine" Wallop-Breaux projects. Of particular assistance to the project

was Mr. Travelstead's convening of a meeting in early June 1987 involving

the principal investigator, Mr. Meier, and Dr. David Feigenbaum of Old

Dominion University. Discussions of early results of the project initiated

the idea for adding a question to fishermen's interviews concerning their

rating the overall quality of their fishing experiences on wreck and reef

ii

sites. This information proved to be extremely helpful to the researchers

in evaluating circumstances at sites which contributed to good or bad

fishing experiences. In addition to participating in the described meeting,

Dr. Feigenbaum has proven helpful on other occasions throughout the study

with regard to exchanging ideas on various aspects of the study.

The data analysis and preparation of report tables could not have

been completed without the assistance of Ms. Nancy Chartier, Project

Specialist and Mr. Edward Heist, Graduate Assistant in VIMS Department of

Marine Advisory Services. A similar contribution to the project was made by

Ms. Maxine Butler, Secretary in VIMS Department of Marine Advisory Services.

In addition to her many diverse and difficult duties, Ms. Butler found the

energy and patience to rework drafts of the project report and to produce

the final copy for printing. Her assistance, like that of Ms. Chartier and

Mr. Heist, was critical to the successful completion of the project. The

final report was printed by Ms. Sylvia Motley of VIMS Print Shop. Ms.

Cheryl Teagle, Office Services Supervisor of the Department of Marine

Advisory Services, and Ms. Jane Lopez of VIMS Finance Office provided

administrative assistance to the project.

Numerous Virginia fishing clubs and marina/tackle shop operators helped

the researchers identify wreck and reef fishermen utilizing certain

artificial reef sites. The Deltaville Fishing and Conservation Club was of

major assistance to the project. In addition to providing names of its

members who fished the Gwynn Island Test Reef, the Club also printed signs

displayed at local businesses encouraging Gwynn Island reef fishermen to

establish contact with the Club or VIMS researchers to become incorporated

into the sample population of fishermen for the project. Mr. James Wharton,

club president, Mr. Gene Sidoli, Captain Tabb Justis, and Mr. Pat Watson

iii

were particularly helpful in spreading the word on the researchers' need to

identify fishermen utilizing the Gwynn Island Reef site. Mr. Wharton also

graciously invited the researchers to join him on a fishing trip to the

reef, an experience which helped the researchers better interpret interview

information obtained from fishermen during the study.

Other individuals, fishing clubs, organizations and businesses that

went out of their way to assist the project in identifying fishermen were

the following: the Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament in providing

addresses of certified weigh stations for distributing flyers on the study

(Appendix A)i Mr. Dee Johnson and Mr. Bruce Easley of the Peninsula

Saltwater Sport Fisherman's Association; Messrs. Roy Cahoon and George

Cooper, Sr. of the Portsmouth Anglers Club; Mr. John Wetlaufer of the

Virginia Anglers Club; Captain Charlie Ward of the Virginia Charter Boat

Association; Mr. Carl Herring and Mr. Herb Gordon, then president and

secretary respectively of the Virginia Federation of Anglers, and Mr. Chuck

Traub of the Virginia Wildlife Federation for reprinting articles on the

project in their publications; Mr. Chuck Guthrie of Lynnhaven Marine Center

in Virginia Beach; Mr. Chris Plakas of Walden Brothers Marina in Deltaville;

Mr. Robert Reiner of Chesapeake Cove Marina in Deltaville; Mr. Wayne ~ulley

of Pulley Marine on Gwynn Island; Mr. R. S. Edwards of Edwards Marine

Railway on Gwynn Island; Mr. Ronald Belcher of R&R Bait and Tackle in

Hudgins; Ms. Gay Webster of the New Point Campground in Mathews County; Mr.

Warren Cobb, Ms. Nancy Cobb and the entire Cobb family, owners of Cobb's

Marina on Little Creek in Norfolk; Captain Fred Feller of the Virginia Beach

Fishing Center; Captains Randy Lewis and Robert Fate of the Wachapreague

Marina; Captain Gordon Eastlake, chartering out of Wachapreague; Captains

Otis Asal and Donald Stiles, charter captains working out of Kings Creek

iv

Marina in Cape Charles; Mr. Tom Armstrong of Boat U.S. in Virginia Beach;

Mr. Leigh Tighe of the Tidewater Sea Urchins dive club and Mr. Norman

Harris, recreational diver (numerous observations on fish at reef and wreck

sites). This listing does not include all of those individuals who helped

the project by encouraging wreck fishermen to participate in the data

gathering process. To such persons, as well as to those specifically

mentioned, we owe a debt of gratitude for their contribution to the study.

Special mention must be made of assistance provided to researchers by

Mr. L. T. "Curley" Edwards of North, Virginia in Mathews County. Known to

everyone who fishes the Gwynn Island Test Reef site, Mr. Edwards graciously

invited the researchers to his home to discuss productive fishing techniques

he utilized in his almost daily trips to the reef site during the fishing

season. Mr. Edwards also alerted other anglers using the Gwynn Island reef

to the researchers need for information, thereby helping significantly in

familiarizing fishermen with the study. Regardless of how things were going

for him at the time, Mr. Edwards always shared information with the

researchers about how the Gwynn Island Reef was performing for local

fishermen. The research team owes Mr. Edwards a debt of gratitude for the

unselfish amount of time and assistance he provided the project.

In a similar manner, most of the fishermen interviewed during the

project gave freely of not only their catch information but also of their

time in providing useful information about fishing situations they

experienced on various wrecks and artificial reefs. While the latter

information was impossible to quantify, it provided a very useful framework

for researchers to use in evaluating some of the project's results. A

special "thank you11 is due to all fishermen who provided their names for use

in the project's sample population of wreck and reef fishermen, as well as

V

to those who were interviewed during the course of the season. The study

could not have been done without their willingness to assist the researchers

in quantifying fishing success rates on Virginia's more popular wreck

fishing sites.

This work is a result of research sponsored in part by the National Sea

Grant College Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, under Grant No. NA91AA-D-00025

to the Virginia Graduate Marine Science Consortium and the Virginia Sea

Grant College Program. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and

distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copywright

notation that may appear hereon.

vi

INTRODUCTION

Recreational fishing opportunities in Virginia for species associated

with hard bottom habitats such as natural oyster reefs and man-made

structures have been enhanced since the early 1970's through an artificial

reef construction program coordinated by the Virginia Marine Resources

Commission (VMRC). This program evolved under the Commission in response to

private interests initiating reef development projects beginning as early as

1959. As more interest developed in establishing reef sites there became a

growing need for state assistance in coordinating permits and the placement

of reef materials on subaqueous bottoms under the jurisdiction of the

Commonwealth and the federal goverrunent (Lucy 1983; Meier et al. 1985).

Virginia's growing artificial reef program led the VMRC to contract with Old

Dominion University (ODU) for a three year study (1983-85) of potential reef

sites in Chesapeake Bay and offshore waters. The study effort provided an

assessment of two test reefs established inside Chesapeake Bay and one site

offshore Wachapreague on the Eastern Shore. The test reef sites were

monitored by researchers using rod and reel fishing techniques designed to

compare the results of fishing effort on each reef site and adjacent

"control° areas not containing reef materials (Feigenbaum 1984; Feigenbaum

et al. 1985a; Feigenbaum et al. 1985b; Feigenbaum et al. 1986). As part of

the study, recommendations were made for future artificial reef development

in Virginia (Feigenbaum et al. 1986).

This project is intended to complement the previous studies,

establishing a data base of recreational fishermen's catch success rates on

major reef and other popular "wreck fishing" sites. By systematically

collecting and analyzing catch and effort data from recreational fishermen

1

-

utilizing such sites, as well as recording observations about how the sites

are most effectively fished, researchers seek to provide the VMRC with

information that will assist in better placement and design of productive

reef sites. This study will also help document current use patterns and the

relative popularity of various reef and other wreck fishing sites among

recreational fishermen.

OBJECTIVE

The basic objective of the study was to identify a core population of

recreational fishermen owning private boats and fishing one or more Virginia

artificial reefs or other popular wreck fishing sites (Figure land Table l)

with some degree of regularity (making a minimum of two or three reef trips

per season). This population of fishing boat owners would be sampled

randomly, by either telephone or fishing log books, to determine fishing

effort and catch rates characterizing trips made to specific reef and other

popular wreck fishing sites during the 1987 fishing season. Examination of

the resulting data would determine whether fishing activity on all, or a

limited number of reef and wreck fishing sites, would be sampled during the

study's second year. The sample population of reef and wreck fishermen

would also be expanded in year two of the study.

METHODS

A chart showing the locations of Virginia's three test reefs and four

major reefs was printed, including the listing of LORAN C coordinates of

major materials on each site. On the reverse side of the chart were spaces

2

for reef and wreck fishermen to provide Virginia Institute of Marine Science

(VIMS) researchers with their names, mailing addresses, and telephone

numbers, in order to assist with the reef study (Appendix A). These charts,

with associated wreck fishermen identification forms on the back, were sent

to major saltwater fishing clubs of coastal Virginia, requesting that they

encourage reef and wreck fishing members to participate in the study. In

addition, the charts, with stamped return envelopes, were sent to major

marinas in the port areas serving artificial reef sites and the majority of

official weigh stations certified by the Virginia Saltwater Fishing

Tournament. In addition to these efforts, the researchers addressed fishing

clubs, visited docking and launching facilities, promoted the study at the

Virginia Sport Fishermen's Forum in 1987 and 1988, prepared news releases

for major metropolitan newspapers (Appendix B), and highlighted the need for

fishermen's participation in the study and study results in VIMS "Marine

Resource Bulletin" ( a Sea Grant quarterly newsletter with circulation of

over 6,800) (Appendix C and D). A mailing of reef charts was again made to

recreational fishing clubs early in 1988 to obtain names of new members

targeting wrecks and reefs. The popular "Chart of Wrecks and Artificial

Reefs in Virginia Waters", a cooperative publication of VIMS Sea Grant

Marine Advisory Program and VMRC's Artificial Reef Program, was re-formatted

and expanded in area to cover lower Chesapeake Bay such that all existing

reef sites were located on the chart (Lucy 1988). Through these techniques

a population of boat-owning reef and wreck fishermen was established and

regularly expanded for sampling purposes. Based upon experience gained with

studies of the offshore recreational pelagic fishery (Bochenek et. al. 1989;

3

Lucy et al. 1988b), it was decided to sample the identified population of

fishermen using a random telephone interview technique.

General Sampling Program for Lower Chesapeake Bay and Offshore Wreck Fishing

Sites

Two week (14 day) telephone sampling "wave date" intervals were

established for the general. reef and wreck sampling program, with the first

random telephone calls made on April 13-15 for the fishing (sampling) period

of March 30-April 12 during the study's first year. In 1988 telephone

interviews for the general sampling period were initiated in the third week

of April for the fishing period April 4-17. Each sampling period extended

from Monday through the second week of the two week time frame. Two

weekends, the time of most private boat fishing activity, were covered in

each telephone sample. For each sampling period a random selection of

letters was made from the alphabet using a random numbers table. These

letters were used to determine from which alphabetical group of fishermen's

names interviewees would be selected. Fishermen's names were then randomly

chosen from within each group of last names beginning with the randomly

selected letter. Calls were made to the 25-30 randomly selected fishermen

until 20 fishermen had been reached. When contacted, fishermen were asked

about reef or wreck fishing trips they might have taken aboard their boat

during the specified sampling period. Telephone calls were predominately

made in the evenings to home telephone numbers supplied by study

participants, but calls were also made to work locations during the day,

whenever such numbers were provided by fishermen. All calls were generally

4

completed on Mondays through Wednesdays of the week immediately following

the sampling period.

Catch data on reef or wreck fishing trips made one to two weeks prior

to the specified fishing period were also recorded and included in the

appropriate sampling period's data set. Such trips helped to supplement the

small total number of artificial reef trips generally accounted for in each

sampling period and provided broader coverage of numerous non-reef "wreck

fishing" trips made by fishermen. If anglers were unsure about the details

of fishing trips, the data were not used.

Fishermen's names were not reused in the telephone sampling list for at

least one month in the general sampling program. This reduced the number of

repetitive calls to the same fisherman, while also helping to insure that

the majority of the population of identified fishermen would be contacted at

least once during the fishing season (Bochenek et al. 1989).

Special Sampling Program for Gw.ynn Island Test Reef Site

The Gwynn Island Test Reef Site was of special interest to researchers

because of the relatively poor catch performance rating it received in the

ODU study (Feigenbaum et al. 1985a; Feigenbaum et al. 1986). The study

results contrasted with reports from fishermen in the local area indicating

that the site was fairly popular, producing reasonable catches of trout and

spot during the summer months and some tautog in the fall (Feigenbaum et al.

1985a; Deltaville Fishing and Conservation Club, personal communication).

Telephone interviews for the first four general sampling periods in

1987, a total of 80 fishermen, produced no trips taken to the Gwynn Island

Test Reef. Researchers were concerned that sufficient data would not be

5

obtained during the season to document catch trends at this particular reef.

A new sampling strategy was designed to address this concern. With

assistance from the Deltaville Fishing and Conservation Club and marina

operators and tackle shops in the Deltaville-Gwynn Island-Mathews County

area, a more concerted effort was initiated to identify a larger number of

boat owners fishing the Gwynn Island Test Reef. A random telephone sampling

of ten such fishermen per two-week period was begun June 1-3, 1987 for the

sampling (fishing) period May 18-31, a schedule that alternated this special

sampling effort with the general sampling schedule initiated for all reef

sites beginning in April.

Because the population of Gwynn Island fishermen was small, especially

at the beginning of the newly established special sampling program, names of

such fishermen were only withheld from the random drawing of names for one

sampling period before being put back into the Gwynn Island Reef population

of fishermen. The designated "Gwynn Island fishermen" were also left in the

total population of fishermen from which random interviews continued to be

made during 1987 in the general sampling effort for all reef sites. This

provided the opportunity at the end of the season to compare the size of

resulting data sets (number of usable interviews) recorded for the Gwynn

Island Test Reef site from the two distinctive sampling efforts. The

revised sampling protocol was continued into November 1987 (last fishing

period sampled was November 2-15).

Sampling effort for the Gwynn Island Test Reef was doubled in 1988 to

increase sample size for each month and the season overall. Sampling began

in the second week of April for the fishing period March 28-April 10. As in

1987, boat owners were interviewed randomly but at no greater frequency than

6

every other interview period (approximately once each month) to enhance

contacting the most fishermen (Lucy et al. 1988a).

Regarding fishing trips to the Gwynn Island Test Reef and other wreck

fishing sites, particular care was taken by researchers to include in the

analysis only trips during which fishing activity was either concentrated

directly on the the reef materials (structure) or within approximately 325

yards (approximately 300 meters) of the reef's periphery. Bohnsack and

Sutherland (1985), in their review paper on reef research, indicated that

the "enhanced fishing zone" around reefs was generally accepted as being

200-300 meters wide for midwater and surface fishes and up to 100 meters

wide for benthic fishes. Since both categories of fish were caught at this

site, the 325 yard zone concept was utilized in determining which recorded

trips , although occurring in the vicinity of the reef, should not be

considered strictly "reef" trips for purposes of the study's analysis. As

expected, reef fishermen sometimes had difficulty in estimating how far away

from the reef or other structure they fished. As researchers interviewed

fishermen and explained the distance problem and its importance, fishermen

became more accustomed to the· study's requirements and more precise in

describing the ways in which they fished sites, including estimating

distances fished from structrues at the site.

Data Collected and Analysis

In both sampling programs records of fishing effort (number of fishing

trips) were maintained for each sampling period and basic catch data

recorded for each reef and wreck fishing trip adequately recalled (see

telephone interview instrument, Appendix E). Concerning catches, fishermen

7

were asked to list what fish(es) they were trying to catch (targeted

species), all types of fish caught, the number kept and released of each

species, and the estimated average weight of fish kept and released by

species. In early July 1987, a question rating the overall quality of each

fishing trip experience was added to the telephone interview instrument as a

result of discussions with the project coordinator, Mr. Jack Travelstead of

VMRC. Since the recall periods were only 14-18 days long, the majority of

fishermen contacted responded quickly and in excellent detail to the

interviewer's questions. Interviewing was terminated in late November of

each year when weather constantly prevented fishermen from making reef or

wreck fishing trips and the majority of such fishermen indicated they were

"finished fishing for the season°. Since data recorded in 1987 for Gwynn

Island Test Reef fishing trips were collected in the same random manner for

both the general sampling program (14 trips) and special program (46 trips),

the data sets were combined (60 trips) for the comprehensive monthly and

seasonal analysis of the Gwynn Island site for that year.

Catch data recorded from fishing trips was organized by general target

species groups for comparison between years and locations within years. The

rationale for this approach was based upon the fact that fishermen seldom

fished for just anything that was available but rather specifically sought

(targeted) certain species. Grouping catch data otherwise would seriously

bias catch rate calculations (one index of fishing success), e.g., it would

be erroneous to include fishing effort associated with trips targeting trout

to the CBBT Islands in calcuations for catch rates of tautog at the

location. Bait selection and fishing techniques are significantly different

for each of these species, therefore fishermen would not likely catch one

species while fishing for the other. While exceptions may occur, i.e. an

8

occasional trout caught while one's line is going down rigged for tautog,

the concept of analyzing catch data by appropriate targeted species or

species groups is felt to be the most valid mechanism for meaningful

interpretation of the study results.

All data were entered on the VIMS Prime mainframe computer and analysis

conducted using SPSS-X software packages (SPSS Inc., 1986). Hours of

fishing time were rounded off to the nearest even hour (e.g., 6.5 hrs. was

rounded off to 6 hrs.). When a ~ange of average fish weight was given for

catches, the average of the "range" was used (e.g., 10 tautog caught with an

average weight of 4-6 pounds, the weight was entered into the computer as 5

pounds).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sample Population of Fishermen

Implementation of various strategies to contact and identify boat

owners fishing artificial reefs and other popular wreck fishing sites in the

Chesapeake Bay and offshore waters resulted in an initial sample population

of approximately 125 fishermen in April 1987 when sampling began. By the

end of the first year's sampling in late November 1987, the identified

population of wreck fishermen had been approximately doubled to 250 boat

owners (Lucy et al. 1988a). The Gwynn Island Test Reef sample population

consisted of 66 fishermen at the end of the 1987 fishing season, reflecting

the special sampling effort initiated to increase data from that site. The

sample population of boat-owning fishermen continued to be expanded in 1988,

totaling 427 individuals by early December 1988 when sampling was completed

for the second and final year of the study. The increased sample population

9

in 1988 (70% greater than 1987 overall) included 97 boat-owning fishermen

associated primarily with fishing the Gwynn Island Test Reef. This specific

group of fishermen, 62% larger than in 1987, was sampled more intensely in

1988 to determine whether such sampling would produce clearer patterns of

fishing preferences (species targeted) and catch rate patterns (see

Methods).

The general sampling program for lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore

sites, excluding the Gwynn Island Test Reef, captured data on 124 and 188

fishing trips in 1987 and 1988, respectively. These trips were made by 56

different boats in 1987 and 110 boats in 1988. The special Gwynn Island

Test Reef sampling effort obtained data on 60 and 83 fishing trips in 1987

and 1988, respectively, representing successful interviews with 40 and 45

different boat owners in each respective season.

General Sampling Program for Lower Chesapeake Bay and Offshore Sites

The general sampling program collected data on fishing trips to

approximately 40 specific wreck fishing locations during each year of the

study. The fifteen most commonly fished sites, indicated in Figure 1 and

Table 2, accounted for 77% and 82% of all trips captured in the general

sampling program in 1987 and 1988, respectively. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge

Tunnel Islands (CBBT Islands) ranked first among all wreck fishing sites

each year, accounting for 18% of all sampled trips in 1987 and 24% in 1988.

The most frequently fished artificial reef was the Chesapeake Light

Tower Reef ranking third overall in relative use compared to all other sites

targeted by boat owners in both study years. Efforts in 1988 to identify

more fishermen utilizing the newest reef, the East Ocean View Reef, were

somewhat successful. The site moved from a very low ranking in frequency of

10

trips in 1987 (2% of all trips sampled) to the fourth most frequently fished

site in 1988 (8% of all trips sampled). This increase in use may also have

been partially the result of the reef being one year old in July 1988,

thereby being more "mature" and more likely to attract fish, at least in the

minds of fishermen. 11 The Cell", a popular wreck fishing site for fishermen

from both sides of Chesapeake Bay, accounted for 11% of fishing trips

sampled in 1988, ranking it second in popularity only behind the Chesapeake

Bay Bridge Tunnel Islands that year. Data on fishing success rates at this

site should provide a useful baseline against which to compare future

fishing experiences if plans for enhancing the site by VMRC are implemented

(M. Meier, personal communication).

Fishing effort parameters (anglers per trip, rod hours fished, etc.)

generally remained more consistent over the two years of the study for sites

in the lower Bay compared to offshore sites (Table 3). Mean fishing effort

(rod hours per trip) varied little between years for sampled trips targeting

the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and the Ocean View Reef. Trips to the Cell

exhibited longer fishing periods in 1988 compared to 1987, resulting in an

apparent increase in mean fishing effort at the site in the second year.

Large variances associated with the mean fishing effort estimates, however,

indicated no significant differences likely existed between years.

Examining mean fishing effort per trip for combined trips to key lower

Chesapeake sites, as compared to combined trips to offshore sites, better

distinguished broad differences in fishing patterns between the inshore and

offshore areas (Table 3).

The five most popular lower Bay sites exhibited mean fishing effort per

trip of approximately 13 rod hours during the study years. In contrast,

combined trip data for popular offshore sites indicated greater effort per

11

trip occurred in 1987 compared to 1988. The major factor causing this

distinction in effort between years appeared to be that, on the average,

more fishing rods were fished per fishing party in 1987 (5.0 rods per trip)

than in 1988 (3.4 rods per trip). Man hours fished per trip in 1987 were

also slightly greater than in 1988 (Table 3).

Fishermen's observations on the number of other boats fishing a given

site exhibited large variations for the sample sizes available, making such

estimates useless. Therefore no index was calculated for boat density at

given sites for the season, as attempted in the first study year.

Catch Patterns

Fishermen utilizing wreck fishing sites in Virginia targeted a

relatively small number of species known to have some affinity for submerged

structures. The species in question may use the structure for protection,

orientation, or as a "feeding station" or for any combination of these

factors. The distribution pattern of sampled fishing effort by primary

species targeted clearly illustrates that the species of highest priority

for wreck fishermen was tautog, Tautoga onitis, particularly in the spring

and in late fall (Tables 4 and 5). Tautog generally occur in both desirable

numbers and sizes (approximately 1-5 pounds) inside Chesapeake Bay and

offshore, unlike an associated species the black sea bass, Centropristis

striata. Both species were generally mentioned by fishermen as the target

species group being sought on offshore sites, however, inside the Bay sea

bass generally are young fish and run small in size (a pound or less).

Their numbers inside the Bay are also generally less consistent than

offshore.

12

A

During late spring and summer, other species groups besides tautog­

seabass begin to be sought by wreck fishermen. This shift in the overall

pattern of targeted species was most noticeable in 1988 (Table 5). A

greater proportion of wreck fishing trips occurring inside Chesapeake Bay

was captured in the general sampling program that year (52% of all trips

sampled occurred at the more popular lower Chesapeake Bay sites listed in

Table 2 in 1988 compared to only 32% in 1987). Inside the Bay, wreck

fishermen began to shift away from fishing for tautog in May and June,

focusing more on gray trout (weakfish, Cynoscion regalis) and summer

flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). Neither of these species are commonly

thought of as "wreck fish" per~ but are known to feed around and orient to

structure as well as other types of bottom environment. As fishing

progressed into the warm summer months, spot (Leistomus xanthurus) and

croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) also began to receive more attention from

wreck fishermen at lower Bay sites, these species attracting the greatest

relative effort in August and September (Table 5). From mid September into

October, wreck fishermen inside the Bay began to shift their emphasis back

to trout, flounder and tautog. At offshore sites sea bass and tautog

continued to be the major targeted species.

One principal exception to the offshore pattern of fishing involved

amberjack (greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili), which were targeted by

fishermen, especially at the Chesapeake Light Tower, during July and August

and even into September and October. This species represents a relatively

new target fishery for Virginia's offshore fishermen and its growing

popularity was recognized in 1988 by the Virginia Saltwater Fishing

Tournament. For the first time in its history the Tournament program

offered release citations for amberjack having a minimum length of 44

13

inches. Over 450 release citations for amberjack were awarded by the

Tournament for 1988, the largest number of citations for any release

category (VSFT 1988).

Other less significant exceptions to traditional offshore wreck fishing

for sea bass and tautog concerned some bluefish (Pornatomus saltatrix) trips

targeting the Chesapeake Light Tower and lower Chesapeake Bay sites in

spring 1988 (Tables 5 and 13). In addition wreck fishermen targeted king

mackerel (Scomberomorous cavalla) and Spanish mackerel(~. maculatus) on a

few trips to lower Bay sites and the Light Tower Reef (Tables 5 and 15).

The seasonal (annual) pattern of fishing effort according to species

targeted also was strongly influenced by the relative increase in lower Bay

trips captured during the 1988 general sampling program. The sea bass­

tautog species group was targeted on nearly 90% of all trips sampled in the

1987 general program compared to only 45% in 1988 (Table 4 and 5). Flounder

and gray trout together were targeted on a total of 25% of all trips sampled

in 1988 while spot and croaker trips accounted for 9% of the total (this

latter species group only accounted for lt of sampled trips in 1987's

general sampling program). Amberjack was targeted on 7% of the 1988 sampled

trips compared to 4% in 1987. Bluefish trips, while not recorded in 1987,

accounted for 4% of 1988 trips. The availability of significant numbers of

legal size (24 inch) striped bass (Morone saxatilis) to Chesapeake Bay

Bridge Tunnel wreck fishermen in November 1988 accounted for 3% of all trips

sampled in that year (Table 5).

Several lower Bay and offshore wreck fishing sites were represented by

enough trips in the general sampling program to allow examination of the

relative contribution made by various species to the overall catch (Table

6). Considering only fish which were kept by fishing parties, tautog

14

t. represented approximately 21% and 40% of total kept fish on 1988 trips to

I

the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and The Cell, respectively, but contributed

nothing to catches at the Ocean View Reef (insufficient trips to The Cell

and Ocean View Reef were captured in the 1987 sampling program to warrant

comparisons). Black sea bass, while making only small contributions to kept

catches at lower Bay sites (approximately 2-13%), accounted for 60%-90% of

kept fish taken at the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef and Triangle Wrecks Area

(includes the Triangle Reef). Tautog correspondingly made smaller

contributions in 1988 to offshore site catches than for trips made inshore

to The Cell and CBBT Islands, the only year in which sufficient trips were

captured in the sampling program to make general comparisons. During 1988

flounder contributed approximately 11%-40% by number to total kept catches

at the three inshore wreck fishing sites, being particularly important in

trips to the Cell (40% of kept catches). Croaker strongly dominated 1988

catches only at the Ocean View Reef (76% of kept catch) with flounder the

other major contributing species (16%), Spot and croaker catches together

accounted for approximately 14% of kept catches at the CBBT Islands but were

insignificant at The Cell. Gray trout was significant only at the CBBT

Islands in 1988, representing approximately 22% of all kept fish, similar in

relative importance to tautog catches at the site.

As expected, sea bass catches dominated offshore reef sites with some

contribution also made by tautog, the two species principally targeted at

such sites. Tautog made major contributions in 1988 to two of three Bay

wreck fishing sites for which sampling captured enough trips to allow

meaningful comparisons. Flounder contributed significantly to catches at

all three Bay sites in 1988 with gray trout being a strong component of

catches only at the CBBT Islands. Spot, croaker and bluefish made small

15

.-. .

contributions to catches at the CBBT Islands and the Cell while croaker

accounted for over 75% of kept fish at the Ocean View Reef. Striped bass

catches at the CBBT Islands in November 1988 added a new component to that

site's fishing, resulting in a contribution to overall catches comparable to

that made by either sea bass, spot, croaker, bluefish or flounder.

Catch rate data compiled in the general sampling program is organized

by appropriate target species groups; sea bass-tautog, spot-croaker-trout­

flounder, spot-croaker, trout, flounder, amberjack, spanish mackerel, king

mackerel and bluefish (Tables 7-15). These data groups best represent the

pattern of wreck fishing observed on reefs and wreck fishing sites in the

Bay and offshore. The spot-croaker-trout-flounder group is a catch-all

group for Bay sites since any one of the four species has a reasonable

likelihood of being caught while bottom fishing for the other species.

Catch data for all reef and the more popular wreck fishing sites are

presented in Tables 7-15. Small sample sizes for many of the sites cannot

be considered truly representative of a season's fishing at the location.

Such data is shown primarily to provide reef managers with what data was

captured in the study and to allow cursory visual comparisons among a

spectrum of wreck fishing sites. Only those fishing locations for which six

or more fishing trips were captured in the sampling programs during 1987 or

1988 will be discussed in detail, unless otherwise noted.

Sea Bass and Tautog

This species target group was sought at all major reef and wreck

fishing sites in both study years with the exception of the sampling program

not recording such trips to The Cell or the Ocean View Reef in 1987 or the

16

Parramore Reef in 1988 (Table 7). Trips generally occurred most frequently

during the months of April through May (sometimes June) and September

through November, although trips during July and occasionally August were

also captured in the sampling program.

Locations for which sufficient fishing trips were sampled to warrant

comparisons from year to year and between locations within either year were:

CBBT Islands, The Cell, Cape Henry Wrecks, Chesapeake Light Tower Reef,

Triangle Wrecks Reef, Triangle Wrecks Area, combined lower Chesapeake Bay

Sites and combined Offshore Sites (Table 7). Sea bass mean catch rates

(fish per rod hour) were greater in 1988, compared to 1987, at the

Chesapeake Light Tower Reef, the Triangle Wrecks Reefs and Triangle Wrecks

Area. Correspondingly, mean pounds of fish kept per rod hour at these sites

were also greater in 1988 than 1987. Yearly differences in sea bass mean

catch rates were not observed at lower Chesapeake sites (CBBT Islands and

the Cape Henry Wrecks. This distinction in yearly catch patterns between

lower Bay sites and offshore sites (Chesapeake Light Tower Reef, Triangle

Wrecks Reef and Triangle Wrecks Area) was further strengthened by similar

results for yearly comparisons between combined trips to major sites in each

zone. Catch rates (number fish caught and pounds kept per rod hour) were

significantly higher in 1988 than 1987 for combined trips to major offshore

sites (Table 7).

Sea bass catch rate comparisons were also made between locations within

each study year. Popular lower Bay site comparisons were limited in 1987 to

those between the CBBT Islands and Cape Henry Wrecks since no trips

targeting sea bass-tautog were captured by the sampling program for The Cell

or Ocean View Reef. Sea bass catch rates (fish per rod hour) were greater

on trips made to the Cape Henry wrecks than to the CBBT Islands. Greater

17

catch rates (pounds of fish kept per rod hour) were also experienced in 1987

offshore at the Triangle Wrecks Area in comparison to the CBBT Islands

(Table 7), The difference in catch rates was not the result of higher catch

rates at the Triangle Wrecks Area (mean fish per rod hour catch comparisons

were not significant) but attributed to larger fish being caught, the

expected situation with sea bass.

A greater range of site comparisons for sea bass catches was possible

in 1988. While no differences in catch rates could be demonstrated between

lower Bay sites (CBBT Islands, The Cell, and Cape Henry Wrecks), significant

differences in catch rates (fish caught and pounds of fish kept per rod

hour) were observed in most comparisons between inshore and offshore sites

(Table 7, footnote F). Offshore sites demonstrated greater mean catch rates

for numbers caught and pounds kept of fish compared to lower Bay sites. The

Triangle Wrecks Area (includes the Liberty Ships Reef) produced mean catch

rates of 4.0 sea bass per rod hour (5,6 pounds of fish per rod hour)

compared to catches of 1.2-1.3 fish per rod hour at the CBBT Islands and

Cape Henry Wrecks sites (Table 7).

Tautog were caught and kept in greater numbers than sea bass at two

lower Bay sites, the CBBT Islands and The Cell (1988 data only), while the

reverse trend occurred at the Cape Henry Wrecks, somewhat intermediate in

its Bay-offshore orientation. No significant yearly differences in catch

rates were detected at specific major sites inshore or offshore. A

significant decline in mean number of fish caught per rod hour was observed,

however, between years when comparing combined trips to offshore sites

(Table 8). More 0 citation size fish" (minimum weight of 9 pounds) are

caught offshore than in the Bay. Records of the Virginia Saltwater Fishing

Tournament indicate tautog citations declined 98% from 1986 through 1988

18

(VSFT 1986-1988), lending support to the decline in catch rates noted in

this study. Catch rates at major lower Bay sites (number of fish and pounds

of fish kept per rod hour) were greater than at most offshore sites in 1988

and to some extent in 1987. The CBBT Islands supported catch rates higher

than all other major sites tested except for The Cell (1988 data only) and

Cape Henry Wrecks (number of fish caught per rod hour in 1988) (Table 8).

Tautog catch rates in 1988 were greater for lower Bay sites (trips combined)

than Offshore Sites (trips combined) but this was not the case in 1987.

Capturing sea bass-tautog trips to The Cell in 1988 likely contributed to

the differences observed between lower Bay and offshore sites in that year.

Spot, Croaker. Trout and Flounder

This composite group of "bottom fish" was targeted only at lower Bay

sites, excluding the Cape Henry Wrecks. Trout and flounder were each

specified separately as target species while spot and croaker were generally

mentioned as a two-species target unit. Compared to the fishing pattern for

tautog and sea bass at Bay sites, sciaenids and flounder were principally

targeted during summer months (June-August) with trips also made in May and

the September-October period.

Species preference patterns differed seasonally at lower Bay sites,

particularly during the 1988 season. October 1988 was a major fishing

period for trips to the CBBT Islands targeting flounder and to The Cell

targeting spot and trout. Other temporal differences in species preference

patterns at the CBBT Islands and The Cell also occurred in 1988. Fishermen

principally targeted gray trout in May through July at the CBBT Islands but

targeted flounder at The Cell in June and July. Flounder and croaker were

19

-

targeted during June-July at the Ocean View Reef. These different fishing

patterns at Bay sites demonstrated the diversity of fishing opportunities

provided fishermen seasonally by the existing mixture of reefs and wreck

fishing sites in the lower Bay area.

No significant yearly differences in mean catch rates were observed for

spot at any of the Bay sites (excluding comparrisons with Gwynnisland Test

Reef), although sample sizes only provided meaningful comparisons for the

CBBT Islands and combined Lower Chesapeake Bay sites (Table 9). No

differences in catch rates could be demonstrated among the CBBT Islands, The

Cell and The Ocean View Reef in 1988, the only year in which sample sizes

were adequate for statistical comparisons.

Spot catch data, like that of croaker, trout and flounder, was examined

from two perspectives: (1) catches made during trips targeting any of the

four species of the "bottom fish" target group and (2) catches made on trips

targeting only spot-croaker (Table 9). While sample sizes were not

sufficiently large in either study year to warrant statistical comparisons

between the two trip categories at given locations, the data indicate

refinements in catch rate comparisons might be achieved by such data

aggregations. For example, breaking out trips targeting only spot-croaker

(Table 9, lower section) demonstrated that catch rates might have been

higher at the CBBT Islands for such trips than when catch rates were

calculated based upon a broader target spectrum of bottom fish. Sampling

effort capabilities and rate of capture of fishing trips targeting certain

species would determine how much data disaggregation can occur in providing

the most meaningful analysis of catch rates for desirable species.

Croaker catch rates exhibited yearly differences at the CBBT Islands,

the only location with large enough sample sizes each year to justify a

20

·""'

comparison (Table 10). Significantly higher 1987 catch rates were also

observed for yearly comparisons between combined trips to major lower

Chesapeake Bay sites. Mean numbers of fish caught and, correspondingly,

pounds of fish kept were significantly greater in 1987 compared to 1988.

Significant differences in mean catch rates (number and pounds per rod hour)

between sites were observed in 1988. The Ocean View Reef produced better

croaker catches than the CBBT Islands or The Cell for trips targeting the

bottom fish group of species. Insufficient sample sizes were available to

making similar site comparisons for trips targeting only spot-croaker (Table

10).

Gray trout (weakfish) mean catch rates did not differ between years for

the CBBT Islands and combined trips to major lower Bay sites (Table 11). As

with spot and croaker small samples sizes in 1987 at The Cell and Ocean View

Reef prohibited yearly comparisons at these two sites. Virginia Saltwater

Fishing Tournament records documented a 49% reduction in Virginia citations

for gray trout (12 pound minimum) from 1986 through 1988 (VSFT 1986-88).

Since the average weight of trout kept on trips sampled in the two years

studied ranged from 1.6-1.8 pounds, study results did not reflect the

obvious decline in "trophy" fish. More intensive sampling in 1988 indicated

that mean catch rates for gray trout at the CBBT Islands exceeded those at

the Ocean View Reef (number per rod hour). In terms of pounds of kept fish

per rod hour, CBBT Island trips produced better catch rates than those to

both the Ocean View Reef and The Cell (Table 11). While few in number,

eight trips targeting gray trout specifically at the CBBT Islands produced

mean catches of 2.5 fish per rod hour and 3.1 pounds of kept fish per rod

hour.

21

Flounder catch rates at wreck fishing sites did not vary significantly

between years at the CBBT Islands or over combined trips to lower Bay sites

(Table 12). Neither were differences in catch rates observed between lower

Bay sites in 1988 when better sample sizes were obtained. Mean weights of

fish kept were approximately two pounds in both study years and only a very

small percentage of catches were released (Table 12). The number of

flounder citations (six pound minimum weight) remained stable during the

study period (VSFT 1986-1988), a trend supporting the constant catch rates

of this study for 1987 and 1988.

Bluefish

Bluefish were targeted on only two wreck fishing trips captured in the

1987 sampling and four trips in 1988 (Table 13). Since bluefish, when

around wrecks or reefs, may be caught incidentally to targeted wreck fish

species, catch rates were determined for the species. Larger bluefish were

caught at offshore than inshore sites. Catch rates ranged only from 0.1

fish per rod hour for non-bluefish trips to 2.0 fish per rod hour when the

species was targeted at a wreck fishing site. Wreck fishing sites are not

normally targeted for bluefish but the species will congregate at a site to

feed on bait fish. Sometimes such congregations of bluefish become a

nuisance to offshore wreck fishermen who may have sea bass catches damaged

by bluefish.

22

Amberjack

Fishing trips targeting amberjacks, principally at the Chesapeake Light

Tower, have increased in frequency during the past few years. The species

was also sought over offshore wrecks and the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef, a

few such trips being captured in the sampling program each year (Table 14).

One of the larger species to frequent wreck and other structures offshore

except for sharks, amberjack provided wreck fishermen with average weights

of keep fish of 40-58 pounds. Generally most fished were released,

particularly since in 1988 the Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament began

offering release citations of fish over 44 inches in length (VSFT 1988).

The Chesapeake Light Tower produced 1988 catch rates of 0.6 fish per rod

hour, based upon seven trips captured in the sampling program. The majority

of amberjack trips were made in July and August. Statistical comparisons

for mean catch rates were not made between years or locations within years

because sample sizes were too small.

Spanish Mackerel and King Mackerel

A few trips targeting Spanish and king mackerel were captured in the

sampling program (Table 15). Four Spanish mackerel trips were sampled in

1988 (none were captured in 1987), the third consecutive year that the

species has been abundant in Virginia inshore and offshore waters (VSFT

1988). Three Spanish mackerel trips at the CBBT Islands produced a mean

catch rate of 0.9 fish per rod hour and the fish averaged 2.4 pounds each

(Table 15).

23

King mackerel trips captured in the sampling program occurred

principally at the Cape Henry Wrecks and Chesapeake Light Tower Reef. Mean

catch rates were low, ranging from 0.1-0.2 fish per rod hour with fish

averaging 7 to 15 pounds each. Yearly and within year catch rate

comparisons were not warranted because of small sample sizes.

Striped Bass

Striped bass trips were only captured in the 1988 sampling program. A

regulation moratorium was in place on the species from December 1, 1988

through May 31, 1989. After May 31, fish caught inside Chesapeake Bay could

only be kept if they measured a minimum of 24 inches in total length. A bag

limit was also imposed on recreational fishermen of five such legal size

fish per angler per day (VMRC 1987). Five trips in November 1988 targeting

the CBBT Islands were sampled {Table 15). The mean catch rate was 1.3 fish

per rod hour with kept fish averaging 12.4 pounds each. A release rate of

34% was observed. The possible re-opening of this fishery in July 1990 may

extend and diversify wreck fishing opportunities at the CBBT Islands and

other sites in lower Chesapeake Bay.

Quality Ratings of Fishing Experiences

Fishermen's ratings of fishing experiences for trips to wreck fishing

locations provided a qualitative index of fishing expectations and success

rates at certain popular sites (Table 16). Since fishermen's target species

preferences differed at various wreck fishing sites and even within the

season at a given site, some measure of fishing satisfaction was required to

take such differences and associated expectations into account when

24

evaluating the relative fishing productivity of sites. As with the catch

data analysis, quality rating responses were assessed based on all trips

sampled to a given site and also on the basis of trips targeting certain

species or species groups. The assessment of quality ratings distribution

was seriously hampered by small sample sizes (number of trips made)

associated with some species target groups for certain sites. Only the more

popular wreck fishing sites could be evaluated for quality ratings of

fishing trips because of this limitation.

Without regard to species targeted on trips, the CBBT Islands rated

highest in quality of 1987 fishing experiences, having 30% of 23 trips rated

as being fair to good, 26% as very good, and 26% as excellent. Quality

rating questions were not asked fishermen during interviews until late June.

The resulted in such data being unavailable for many trips to other

locations, e.g. The Cell (on 73% of trips fishermen specified no quality

rating) and the Triangle Wrecks Area (88% of trips were not rated).

Sample data for quality ratings of trips for the 1988 fishing season

was better than in 1987. The Ocean View Reef received a poor rating on 56%

of its 16 trips, the highest percentage of poor ratings for any site

analyzed (Table 16). The fact that this site was only one year old in the

summer of 1988 may have been at least partially responsible for its poor

rating. Fishermen also indicated some problems in holding bottom when

anchoring on the site, another factor that might have contributed to its

poor rating. The Chesapeake Light Tower Reef, the CBBT Islands and The Cell

all received relatively low percentages of poor ratings for trips (11%-19%).

The CBBT Islands and the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef both had 45% of their

45 and 18 trips, respectively, rated as producing fair to good fishing. No

other sites rated as high in these combined categories.

25

The best measure of a site's performance over a fishing season is

likely the proportion of trips which produced 11very good11 to "excellent"

fishing in the opinions of fishermen. The Cell led these combined rating

categories with 52% of 21 trips so-rated in 1988 (Table 16). This site was

followed in the combined very good to excellent categories by the CBBT

Islands and the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef. The Ocean View Reef and

Triangle Wrecks Area were each rated as "very good" on 23%-25% of the 1988

season's trips but received no trip ratings of 11 excellent11• Chesapeake

Light Tower experienced 20% very good to excellent trips, the lowest

relative rating in these combined categories for the six sites analyzed.

Weighting ratings (Table 16B) indicated that when target species sought on

trips were not considered, the sites ranked in fishing quality as follows:

The Cell, CBBT Islands, Chesapeake Light Tower Reef, Triangle Wrecks Area,

Ocean View Reef, and Chesapeake Light Tower.

Contrasting 1988 combined trips to lower Bay sites with those made to

offshore sites, the two broad areas were closely matched in "poor" ratings

(26% and 22%, respectively). In the fair to good combined categories, the

two areas also compared favorably in relative ratings. Lower Bay sites had

relatively more trips (37%) rated in the very good to excellent combined

categories compared to trips to offshore sites (22%), but 18% of trips to

offshore sites were not rated in interviews compared to only 3% for lower

Bay sites. Weighted rating totals indicated that overall combined trips to

lower Bay sites ranked slightly higher in fishing quality than trips to

offshore sites (Table 16A).

Rating of wreck fishing locations based upon trips targeting sea bass

and tautog produced somewhat similar results to those observed when target

species were not taken into consideration. Examining very good to excellent

26

combined ratings for sites, the top rated site for sea bass-tautog trips was

The Cell (60%). Ranking second behind The Cell was the Triangle Wrecks Area

followed by the CBBT Islands and the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef. The Ocean

View Reef and Chesapeake Light Tower tied for last in the weighted ranking

of sites although too few trips for sea bass and tautog were made to these

sites for meaningful comparisons. Lower Bay sites (combined) again ranked

better than offshore sites (Table 16A).

The 1988 rating analysis for trips targeting spot, croaker, trout and

flounder was mixed and difficult to interpret. The Ocean View Reef received

the largest percentage of poor ratings (36%) compared to the Cell (27%) and

the CBBT Islands (17%). Only the CBBT Islands received excellent ratings

(17%) but The Cell received very good ratings for 45% of trips compared to

the Ocean View Reef (36%) and the CBBT Islands (4%). Weighted rating totals

indicated The Cell again received the highest relative rating in this target

species group followed by the CBBT Islands and Ocean View Reef, each of

which were ranked approximately the same.

Trips targeting spot-croaker, trout, and flounder respectively were too

few in number for meaningful comparisons among sites. Weighted combined

lower Bay site ratings, however, indicated that flounder fishing trips in

1988 provided higher rated fishing experiences than either spot-croaker or

trout trips (Table 16A). Trips targeting striped bass in November 1988 and

offshore species, i.e. Spanish and king mackerel and amberjack, were too few

in number at the sites fished for these species to provide meaningful

assessments of fishing quality ratings.

27

Special Sampling Program for Gw,ynn Island Test Reef

Doubling the number of fishermen interviews from ten per sampling

period in 1987 to twenty per period in 1988 produced usable data for 83

trips. This represented a 38% increase in sample size for the site (Table

17). Comparing the relative frequency of seasonal fishing effort captured

each month between years indicated that major increases in sample size

occurred primarily for the months of July, August and September but not for

April, May and June.

Many fishermen indicated during interviews that windy weather prevented

fishing trips planned to the site from mid April through early May.

Fishermen trying to locate the test reef in May discovered that its buoys

had been carried away in storms over the winter. Small temporary buoys were

not placed on the site until late June because of boat scheduling and

weather problems (M. Meier, personal communication). In addition to the

site being difficult to locate for fishermen early in the year, fishermen

also indicated in interviews that they were following up on good fishing

reports from the lower Piankatank and Rappahannock Rivers. They planned to

try the test reef later when fishing at the site would likely be more

productive than during mid spring. The considerable relative decline in

fishing effort in October 1988, in contrast to the previous year, was

attributed to a combination of windy weather, few reports of good tautog

fishing at the site, and the buoys disappearing once again.

Fishing effort parameters (anglers per trip, hours fished, rods fished,

etc.) for each month and the season overall changed somewhat between years

(Table 18). Relative declines in mean fishing effort (rod hours fished per

trip) between years were apparent in June, August and September. Large

variances associated with mean estimates of fishing effort indicated that

28

the slight overall seasonal decline in mean fishing effort was not

significant

Fishing patterns relative to species targeted over the season were

slightly different between years (Table 19). The 1987 sampling program

captured one trip targeting tautog in May and several trips targeting trout

in June and July. A dissimilar pattern was observed in 19.88 with only a few

trips targeting flounder, bluefish and spot captured in the sampling effort

during May and June. Trips targeting trout did not appear in sample

interviews until August, continuing into October when tautog trips began to

occur. The few trips sampled in November 1988 all targeted tautog, following

the same pattern as in 1987 (Table 19).

Bait use patterns at the Gwynn Island Test Reef were not examined in

detail for 1988 since a broad spectrum of baits was consistently utilized by

fishermen. In general, fishermen targeting spot, croaker or trout used

bloodworms, cut bait, squid and peeler crab (or hard crab). Bloodworms, as

as in 1987, were by far the most frequently used bait at the site (Lucy~

al. 1988a). When fishing for tautog in the fall, fishermen utilized hard

crab for bait or occasionally clam.

Numbers of boats fishing the site were not estimated during each month

of the season in 1988, as had been attempted in 1987 (Lucy et al. 1988a).

As with fishermen's estimates of numbers of boats fishing lower Bay and

offshore sites, too much variation occurred in the observations to make the

data reliable.

Targeted species preferences at the site were also reflected in the

distribution of species comprising major components of 11kept" catches (Table

20). During both study years spot dominated catches throughout most of the

fishing season. Croaker and trout catches also contributed consistently to

29

catches in the first half of the 1987 season but not to the same degree in

1988. Trout accounted for a larger proportion of August through October

catches in 1988 compared to the previous year. As previously mentioned,

fishermen were slower to fish the reef in May 1988 compared to 1987 and

primarily targeted flounder or bluefish. This change in fishing pattern was

reflected in the composition of May 1988 catches. Tautog contributed to

catches in October in both years, making a stronger contribution in 1988

than 1987. Black sea bass were not caught on the reef in 1988, making

tautog the only species recorded in November 1988 catches. For the season as

a whole spot accounted for approximately 79%-82% of all kept fish with trout

in a distant but consistent second place. Croaker supplied approximately 5%

of the catch in 1987 and 2% in 1988 while tautog also contributed 2% of the

kept catch in 1988. While not caught in great numbers in 1988, scup,

whiting and northern puffers were also taken at the reef from July into

October, occurring in greater numbers than in 1987.

Catch Patterns

Catch rates for major species sought at the Gwynn Island Test Reef were

analyzed based upon the same target species groups utilized for lower Bay

sites. Spot, the major species contributing to catches at the Gwynn Island

site, generally exhibited consistent mean catch rates between years for each

month of the season for combined trips targeting spot, croaker, trout and

flounder. Catch rates (pounds of fish kept per rod hour) in September 1987,

however, were greater than those for the same month in 1988 (Table 21).

Since mean weights of fish kept were only slightly different in the two

study years for September catches (0.8 pounds in 1987 and 0.7 pounds in

1988), the differences can only be attributed to catches of a few large spot

30

-

in 1987. The one month of distinctive catch rates between years for spot

did not result in significantly different catch rates for the season

overall. Breaking out trips targeting spot and croaker only indicated that,

while catch rates were slightly improved over the more general target

species grouping, significant differences in catch rates between years did

not exist {Table 21).

Croaker, caught in much fewer numbers than spot, also exhibited a

pattern of mean catch rates over the season similar to that for spot.

Significant differences in mean catch rates {number caught and pounds kept

per rod hour) only occurred between years in September for combined trips

targeting the composite "bottom fish" group (Table 22). Catch rates were

higher in September 1987 compared to the same period in 1988, Average

weights of kept croaker were also greater in September 1987 than September

1988. The one month of different catch rates was not sufficient to result

in significant differences in catch rates between years for the season as a

whole, regardless of target species preferences.

Gray trout catch patterns were slightly more distinctive between years

than either spot or croaker (Table 23). Mean catch rates (number caught and

pounds kept per rod hour) were significantly different between years for

July catches at the test reef. The higher catch rates of July 1987 resulted

in significant differences between 1987-1988 seasonal catch rates for trout

when examining combined trips targeting spot, croaker, trout and flounder.

Analyzing the small number of trips specifically targeting trout did not

reveal distinctive seasonal catch rates between years (Table 23). This may

have been partially the result of smaller sample sizes in the latter

analysis.

31

Because fishermen targeted the reef site for bluefish on several trips

and incidental bluefish catches occurred when they were bottom fishing for

sciaenids and flounder, bluefish catch rates were examined separately (Table

24). Catch rates were low with catches occurring primarily in May and June.

A few fish averaging four to eight pounds each were caught at the site

during this period in 1988 compared to only August 1987 catches of small

bluefish, all of which were released. Bluefish contributed to the diversity

of catches in spring 1988 but were largely incidental to the major fishing

activity at the site.

Sea bass and tautog, principally the latter species, were targeted at

the reef only in October and November, except for one trip made in July 1988

when no fish were caught (Tables 25 and 26). Unfortunately only a small

number of such trips were captured in the sampling program each year. The

population of fishermen who pursue tautog at the site in the cooler and more

windy fall weather is much smaller than that fishing the site during summer

months. In addition, weather conditions reduce the frequency of trips that

can be made to the site by those seeking tautog. This combination of

factors naturally produced small sample sizes in the random sampling

program.

Mean catch rates for tautog (number of fish caught and pounds kept per

rod hour) appeared to improve from 1987 to 1988 but the small sample sizes

failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences in catch rates

between months or the seasons overall for the two years of the study (Table

26). For the few trips targeting tautog captured in the sampling program

each season, mean catch rates were three times higher in 1988 and fish

averaged four pounds compared to 0.6 pounds in 1987. Improved catches in

1988, although not shown to be statistically higher than those in 1987, were

32

also suggested by reports obtained from R&R Bait and Tackle shop in Hudgins,

Virginia, where tautog fishermen bought bait and compared fishing

experiences (R. Belcher, personal communication).

Incidental sea bass catches also occurred at the reef in 1987 when

fishermen were seeking tautog with the majority of the catches released

because of fish averaging less than one pound in weight. No catches of even

small sea bass were recorded in the 1988 sampling program (Table 25),

Quality Rating of Fishing Experiences

Fishermen's quality ratings for trips to the test reef site indicated

that when not considering targeted species preferences, 1988 produced

slightly better quality fishing for the season than in-1987 (Table 16 A,B).

The fact that quality ratings were not requested from fishermen until late

in June 1987 affected the yearly comparison. If the fishing quality

question had been included in interviews at the beginning of the 1987

sampling program, the comparative seasonal ratings would have been closer.

For example, if the 271 of 1987 trips for which quality ratings were not

specified had been rated only as 11 fair 11 by fishermen interviewed, the 1987

total seasonal rating would have been the same as that for 1988. Therefore

it must be concluded that, in general, fishing quality during 1987 was rated

approximately as high as in 1988,

The same pattern existed for quality rating comparison~ between years

for the bottom fishing target species group of spot, croaker, flounder and

trout (Table 16 A,B). Examining trips specifically targeting only spot and

croaker indicated that slightly better satisfaction was gained by fishermen

seeking these species during 1987 compared to 1988, even when allowing for

1987 trips for which quality ratings were not obtained. This result may be

33

affected by the 11very good" spot catches made on the reef in October 1987

(Table 21) which were not matched by catches in the same period in 1988.

Unfortunately small sample sizes in October '88 prevented detecting

significant differences in mean catch rates for the months between years.

Quality ratings for trout trips to the reef indicated that fishermen

were better satisfied with catches in 1988 although, in general, catch rates

were slightly higher in 1987 (Table 16 A,B). Release rates were lower in

1988, possibly contributing to the slightly better rating (Table 23),

Ratings for sea bass-tautog trips, primarily targeting tautog in

actuality, were difficult to compare between years because of small sample

sizes and the fact that half of the 1987 trips were not rated for quality.

In spite of these problems, it can be stated that 1988 likely produced

somewhat higher satisfaction for tautog fishermen than the previous year,

given the observed weights of fish caught that year (Table 26). This

conclusion is based upon the observation that if all of the three 1987

tautog trips had been rated "very good" for fishing, the total rating for

the season (28.3) would still have been less than that for 1988 (Table 16

A,B). Only if these 1987 trips had each been rated as "excellent11 would the

1987 total rating for tautog trips (33.3) have exceeded that for 1988.

Gl'lYJln Island Test Reef, Lower Bay and Offshore Sites

The Gwynn Island Test Reef, being further up Bay than other popular

wreck fishing sites sampled in the study, was compared to other sites to

determine whether catch rates of targeted species were similar or different

within each study year (Table 28). During 1988 spot catch rates (mean fish

per rod hour) were higher at the Gwynn Island site than at other lower Bay

sites having large enough sample sizes for meaningful comparisons, i.e. The

34

Cell, Ocean View Reef, CBBT Islands and combined trips to these sites. Spot

were targeted on a greater percentage of trips to the Gwynn Island Reef

(53%-1987, 76%-1988) than at other sites in the lower Bay (Table 5 and 19).

Corresponding to higher catch rates for spot in terms of numbers of fish

caught per unit fishing effort, the Gwynn Island sites also produced more

pounds of spot caught per rod hour than other lower Bay sites. Spot catch

rates at the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 were only significantly higher

than those for combined trips to lower Bay sites and not different from

those at the CBBT Islands (Table 28).

Croaker and trout catches at the Gwynn Island site were not as

consistent as spot, nor were these species targeted as frequently by

fishermen. Comparisons with lower Bay sites indicated the test reef

produced lower mean catch rates for croaker than the Ocean View Reef in 1988

and at the CBBT Islands and combined trips to lower Bay sites in 1987 (Table

28). Mean catch rates for croaker in 1988 were not different from those

determined for trips to the CBBT Islands, The Cell and lower Bay sites

combined. Trout catch rates at the Gwynn Island Reef in 1988 exhibited a

similar pattern to croaker when compared to other lower Bay sites. In 1987

no differences in trout catch rates were observed between the Gwynn Island

Test Reef, the CBBT Islands and combined trips to lower Bay sites (Table

28). Comparisons for flounder were not warranted since the species was only

caught on several trips at Gwynn Island in each study year,

Sea bass and tautog catch rates at the Gwynn Island site were more

difficult to compare to other lower Bay and offshore sites because of small

sample sizes at the test reef. Sea bass were only caught in small numbers

at Gwynn Island in 1987 and none caught in trips sampled during 1988.

Because sea bass catches were also sporadic in both years at other lower Bay

35

sites, no significant differences could be shown for sea bass catches

between any of the Bay sites. In 1988 the Gwynn Island Test Reef produced

no sea bass catches, this "zero catch rate" being significantly lower than

those at the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef and Triangle Wrecks Areas offshore.

The same problems occurred with tautog catch rate comparisons between

lower Bay and offshore sits. Only in 1987 were tautog catch rates

significantly lower at the Gwynn Island Test Reef compared to those at the

CBBT Islands, Otherwise, significant differences could not be demonstrated

between the test reef and other sites (Table 28). Larger sample sizes were

needed at the test reef site to make meaningful comparisons between tautog

catch rates at the various lower Bay and offshore sites.

Comparing fish quality ratings for trips made to the Gwynn Island Test

Reef and other lower Bay and offshore wreck fishing sites indicated that the

site ranked about in the middle of group when target species were not

considered (Tables 16B and 27B). Since quality ratings were not obtained

during interviews in the early portion of the 1987 fishing season, the 1988

season provided better comparisons between sites. Ignoring target species

preferences and combining all trips for respective sites in 1988, the Gwynn

Island Test Reef exhibited a weighted total quality rating of approximately

24 (Table 27B). This rating was exceeded by comparable ratings given The

Cell, the CBBT Islands and the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef. The Gwynn

Island site weighted rating exceeded that for the Triangle Wrecks Area, the

Ocean View Reef and the Chesapeake Light Tower (Table 16B).

Comparing fishing quality ratings on a target species basis indicated

that the Gwynn Island site ranked slightly lower than other lower Bay sites

combined. This was the case for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot,

croaker, trout and flounder), spot and croaker, trout only, and flounder

36

only (Tables 16B and 27B). Comparisons based upon sea bass-tautog trips

ranked the Gwynn Island Test Reef higher than all sites except The Cell.

Ratings for such trips were obviously responsible for pulling up the ranking

of the site when target species preferences were ignored.

Comparing 1987 Study Results with Monitoring Study

Fishermen were interviewed for this study during the 1987 fishing

season while a monitoring study of the test reef site was also being

undertaken by researchers from Old Dominion University (Feigenbaum et al.

1988). The objectives and designs of the two studies were quite different

but some brief comparisons of results are appropriate. Fourteen randomly

scheduled trips to the reef site in the monitoring study (Feigenbaum et al.

1988), taking into account month and tidal cycle, produced catch rate data

on the reef for key species similar in magnitude to that documented for

fishermen (Lucy et al. 1988). Spot catch rates (mean number of fish caught

per rod hour) ranged from 1.0 to 5.2 in the study targeting fishermen with a

seasonal rate of 3.2 fish per rod hour (Lucy et al. 1988) compared to catch

rates of 1.9-2.3 spot per rod hour in the monitoring study (Feigenbaum et

al. 1988). Seasonal croaker catch rates (0.2 fish per rod hour) were lower

in the study of fishermen's catches than in the monitoring study (1.2

croaker per rod hour) but sea bass catch rates were similar in magnitude (0-

1.2 fish per rod hour from August through November compared to 0.4-0.8 fish

per rod hour in the monitoring study). A higher seasonal catch rate of

"desirable species" (spot, croaker, gray trout, flounder, bluefish, sea bass

and tautog) was observed in the study of fishermen's catches (4.2 fish per

rod hour) compared to 1.7 desirable fish per rod hour in the monitoring

study. The difference is likely attributed to the fact that fishermen

37

specifically targeted certain species and fished the test reef site longer

during trips than possible in the monitoring study. The former study was

also able to obtain data from fishermen on 60 trips during the season

compared to the monitoring study's 14 trips.

The monitoring study documented oyster toadfish utilizing the test reef

sites (Feigenbaum et al. 1988). Catches of this "trash fish" were not

mentioned in 1987 random telephone interviews of fishermen (Lucy et al.

1988). It was found that fishermen did not consider catches of toadfish to

be worthy of mention in 1987, but by specifically asking about such catches

in 1988, mean catch rates of up to 0.2 toadfish per rod hour were documented

with all but an occasional fish released.

In general fishing patterns and seasonal availability of species were

found to be similar in both studies. Both studies documented the popularity

of the site for local fishermen. The study of fishermen's experiences on

the test reef indicated that the quality of fishing was rated fair to good

(Lucy et al. 1988), an element not measured in the monitoring study

(Feigenbaum et al. 1988). The results of the two studies complimented each

other and helped clarify some of the local aspects of reef fishing which

make a site useful to fishermen.

CONCLUSIONS

The sampling program initiated by the study has provided the VMRC

Artificial Reef Program with a workable system for assessing fishing success

rates on existing and newly established artificial reefs. The concepts

developed in the study also provided a mechanism for comparing recreational

fishermen's experiences on artificial reefs with those customarily obtained

38

at other popular "wreck fishing" sites. This facet of the project opened up

new opportunities for evaluating fishing productivity of artificial reef

sites as viewed through the eyes and fishing experiences of reef users.

Distinctions in target species preferences of fishermen were clearly

demonstrated for various reef sites in the Bay as well as offshore. The

important contribution of sciaenids (spot, croaker and trout) to Bay reef

fishing was documented, particularly for the Gwynn Island Test Reef and

Ocean View Reef. The lack of sea bass and tautog at the Ocean View Reef

indicated that the igloo structures forming the reef do not provide the

necesary habitat to attract and hold these species. A mix of structures and

materials at different test reef sites attract both species in the Bay,

particularly tautog in the fall. The study results suggested that

diversifying materials on the Ocean View Reef could enhance the mix of

species available there.

The fishing experience quality rating component of the study provided

valuable insight into how fishermen evaluate wreck fishing experiences.

Catch rates, consistency of the site in producing desirable fish, and size

of fish caught all played important roles in determining the quality of

fishing experiences at a site. Remarks from fishermen utilizing the Ocean

View Reef and Gwynn Island Test Reef also indicated that difficulties

encountered in locating or fishing a site, i.e. buoys missing, bottom hard

to hold, etc., affected use rates and quality of fishing experiences.

Ranking popular wreck fishing sites in terms of their fishing quality rating

strongly supported planned enhancement of The Cell site by the VMRC Reef

Program. This site consistently ranked above existing artificial reefs in

the Bay in terms of quality of fishing experiences.

39

A

Increasing the sampling effort for the Gwynn Island Test Reef and

concentrating efforts on identifying a greater number of lower Bay fishermen

targeting wreck fishing sites produced better sample data in 1988 for the

Gwynn Island site as well as the CBBT Islands, Ocean View Reef and The Cell.

The increased sampling effort at the Gwynn Island site, however, was not

able to overcome weather and missing buoy problems in 1988 to produce larger

sample sizes for May, June and October. This in~icated the negative impact

such factors can have on implementing any sampling program dependent upon

obtaining catch data from fishermen. On the positive side, identifying more

fishermen targeting The Cell in 1988 provided an excellent opportunity to

compare future fishing experiences at the proposed enhan~ed site with those

documented in 1988.

Analyzing catch data in the study by species groups provided a

mechanism to compare fishing sucess rates at sites in a way tpat may prove

meaningful to fishermen and fishery managers. This concept provided another

tool that reef managers can utilize to evaluate established sites and, more

importantly, explain the results of their projec~s to fishermen. This type

of analysis also pointed out the need to expand sample sizes to derive

better information from data collected.

The study also provided much new visability for Virginia's Artifiical

Reef Program. It also established a core of wreck fishermen which, once

updated, could be utilized in the future to provide catch assessments on

existing, modified or new reef sites. The study results established a

baseline of catch information on popular wreck fishing sites, including

artificial reefs, which should prove useful in examining fishing benefits

associated with reef site modifications planned for the future.

40

Figure 1. Locations of artificial reefs and other popular wreck fishing

sites in lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore waters of Virginia.

41

76°50'

76'50'

76'00'

~ ,.~

t • • . h-~

Chesapeake

Bay

76"00'

4

• Tugbost Wnick

75°20'

• Pa,amo19 Tnt Reel • Paramo .. Reel

Trianglo Wnicka RMI•

• Ch8,ap,auU1htTo-r • Ught ToMr Roof

• Santore Wnick

38"00'

37"00'

75"20'

Table 1. Description of Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites and artificial reefs targeted most frequently by fishermen interviewed in 1987 and 1988.a

Fishing Site

Ches. Bay Bridge Tunnel

The Cell

Ches. Light Tower Reef

E. Ocean View Reef

Triangle Wrecks Reef

Triangle Wrecks Area

Ches. Light Tower

Location Water Depth {Ft.)

Mouth of Ches. Bay {N36°54.3'; W75°42.8') NOAA Chart 12221

Buoy R"WT211 off mouth of Hunger Creek. Eastern Shore {LORAN C 41598/27245 approx.) NOAA chart 12221

Center of Reef approx. 0.6 nm WSW of Ches. Light Tower; {LORAN C 41286.2/27103.0 - 4 60'X 80' drydock sections); NOAA Chart 12221

2500 yards west of entrance to Little Creek. Norfolk and 900 yards off beach; originally known as

0 "ODU" reef; (N36 56.5'; W76°12.2') NOAA Chart 12256

Vicinity of 11GA11 Buoy marking NE corner of reef (N37°00':W75°21.5') NOAA Chart 12200

Vicinity of 11GA11 Buoy marking NE corner of area. including Liberty Shigs Reef (N37°00'; W75 21.5'); area approx. 3 miles x 2 miles; NOAA Chart 12200

Approx. 13 nm off Virgi­nia Beach. Rudee Inlet (N36°S4.3'; W75°42.8') NOAA Chart 12221

25'-100'

44' with as little as 3' clearance

60'-80'

28'

100 1

1001

45'-55'

42

Material-Structure

Completed 1964; 17.6 miles long; 12 miles trestled roadway; 2 mile-long tunnels with granite boulder islands at ends (4 islands)

Navy degauzing station aban­doned late 1940 1s or early 1950's; concrete. timber. pipes

Established in 1970 and ex­panded periodically; variety of structures, e.g. tire-in concrete units, drydocks, landing craft, pontoon sec­tions etc; VMRC Reef Program took over from Tidewater Artificial Reef Assoc. of VA

40 concrete igloos set in clusters of 3-4 units over 5 acre site; igloos have 7 foot profile; established 1987 by VMRC Reef Program

4 Liberty Ships sunk in mid 1970 1s {Webster, Garrison, Haviland, Clark) by VMRC Reef Program

John Morgan {Liberty Ship); Lillian Luckenbach bulk carrier sunk in collisions 1943 plus other wrecks, Navy landing craft, etc.; 4 Liberty Ships sunk as reef 1974-1977

Built 1965 to replace Chesapeake Light Ship; stands on 4 piles 117' above water

Table 1. (continued)

Fishing Site Location

Santore Wreck Approx. 3.3 nm west of Ches. Light Tower; LORAN C - 41277.7/ 27117.1; NOAA Chart 12221

Water Depth (Ft.}

47'

Concrete Ships Immediately offshore of Kiptopeke forming break­water for former ferry dock. just north of Cape Charles. Eastern Shore; NOAA Chart 12221

Cape Henry Wrecks Wrecks and obstructions located N to NE of Cape Henry Light approx. 2 nm off beach; Chilore -LORAN C 41294.2/27180.3) marked by "2CH" Buoy; NOAA Chart 12221

Tugboat Wreck

Cape Charles Wreck

Parramore Reef

Approx. 4-5 nm off Cava­lier Hotel. Virginia Bch.; N36°51.8'; W75°S3.8' NOAA Chart 12221

Approx. 2.5 m NW Planta­tion Light (approx. LORAN C 41487/27233; NOAA Chart 12221

Approx. 8.7 run from Parramore Coast Guard Tower immed. NW of "R-1011 Buoy off Wacha­preague Inlet. Eastern Shore; LORAN C 41746.3/ 27095.5 (Page); 41744.0/ 27096.0 (Mona Island); NOAA Chart 12210

27 I

50'

so•

40 1-60'

72'-75'

Parramore Test Reef

Approx. 3.8 nm from 72 1-75' Parramore Coast Guard Tower; LORAN C 41747.5/ 27125.2 and 41741.0/ 27126.1; NOAA Chart 12210 appears to have sanded in and difficult to locate for many fishermen

43

Material-Structure

Freighter sunk 6-17-42 by mine from German U-boat

Concrete hull ships made during World War II

Chilore wreck - bulk carrier sunk 7-24-42 (550' long)

Shown as two obstructions on chart

May be steel hull vessel Peconic sunk 7-15-50

2 Liberty ships sunk in mid 1970 1s by VMRC Reef Program with assistance of Seaside Sports Fishing Improve­ment Assoc.

Established by ODU as experimental site in June 1983 under contract to VMRC; concrete pipe stacks and 6 concrete igloos

Table 1. (continued)

Fishing Site

Cape Charles Test Reef

Gywnn Island Test Reef

Location Water Depth (Ft.)

NNW of entrance to 29 1-38' Cherrystone Inlet and east of Buoy C-12; LORAN C 41541.2/27231.0 and 41539.4/27230.8; buoys hard to maintain and difficult to locate for many fishermen; NOAA Chart 12221

Approx. 1.3 run NE of "Hole in the Wall" off southern tip of Gwynn Island; LORAN C - 41637.2/ 27299.4; NOAA Chart 12235

22'

Material-Structure

Established by ODU as experimental test reef site June 1983; 6 concrete igloos and stacks of concrete pipe

Established by ODU as experimental test reef in June 1984; 89 tire in concrete units. 6 concrete igloos. modified tire modules

alnformation compiled from Lucy (1983.1988); Meier et. al. (1985); Feigenbaum et. al. (1986); VMRC (1989); C. Ward (personal communication); U.S. Coast Guard (personal communication); Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District Office (personal communication); background information on local wrecks compiled by J.G. Robinson. Peninsula Salt Water Sport Fishermen's Association in 1970 (mimeograph, personal communication); listing of mid-Atlantic wrecks compiled by J. Cummings (personal communication).

44

Table 2. Distribution of fishing effort among lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites targeted most frequently by boat owners interviewed during 1987 and 1988 (excluding trips to Gwynn Island Test Reefa).

Targeted Fishing Sites

Ches. Bay Bridge Tunnel Islands

The Cell

Chesapeake Light Tower Reef

E. Ocean View Reef

Triangle Wrecks Area (Liberty Ships & other wrecks)

Triangle Wrecks Reef

Chesapeake Light Tower

Santore Wreck

Concrete Ships

Cape Henry Wrecks

Tugboat Wreck (off Va. Beach)

Cape Charles Wreck

Parramore Reef

Parramore Test Reef

Cape Charles Test Reef

Fishing Trip Interviews 1987 (N=l24 trips) 1988 (N=l88 trips) No. Rel. Freq. No. Rel. Freq.

23

4

11

3

16

10

4

1

2

9

7

1

2

2

1

18%

3

9

2

13

8

3

1

2

7

5

1

2

2

1

45

21

18

16

13

5

10

8

5

6

0

4

0

3

1

24%

11

10

8

7

3

5

4

3

3

2

2

1

ain 1987 boat owners identified as targeting the Gwynn Island Test Reef were included in the general sampling program for all wreck-fishing sites, as well as singled out and sampled separately {Lucy et al. 1988); in 1987 the general sampling program captured 14 trips targeting the Gwynn Island Reef {11% of the total trips captured in sampling); in 1988 sampling of Gwynn Island Reef fishermen remained totally separate from that for all other

.wreck fishing locations. 0 Relative distribution of fishing effort among all wreck-fishing sites targeted by fishermen during the sampling program in 1987 and 1988, respectively; non-artificial reef sites receiving less than three trips in either year's sampling program are not listed (23% and 18% of all trips sampled in 1987 and 1988, respectively).

45

Table 3. Fishing effort parameters of sampled trips targeting lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

Fishing Effort Parameters (mean and S.D.) Anglers Hours Fished Rods Fished Rod Hours

Total8 Per Trip Per Trip Per Trip Per Trip Location Trips 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Ches. Bay Br. 23/45 2.8 2.8 4.6 4.0 3.2 3.1 14.5 13.1 Tunnel Islands (0.6) (1.2) (1.8) (1.9) (1.4) (1.8) (10.4) (7.3)

The Cell 4/21 2.8 3.2 4.2 5.2 3.0 3.6 11.0 19.0 (1.0) (1.1) (1. 7) (2.3) (1.8) (1.2) (6.2) (10.6)

Ches. Light 11/18 2.8 2.8 3.9 3.2 4.4 3.4 18.6 12.3 Tower Reef (1.3) (1.2) (1.5) (1.9) (2.6) (1. 7) (16.1) (13.0)

E. Ocean View 3/16 2.0 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.7 3.0 7.7 7.6 Reef ( 0 ) (1.2) (1.5) (1.8) (0.6) (1.0) (5.1) (8.0)

Triangle Wrecks 10/5 3.8 3.6 4.8 5.6 5.8 3.6 25.2 20.4 Reef (1.1) (1.1) (1.6) (1.8) (4.0} (1.1) (12.0} (9.6)

Triangle Wrecks 16/13 3.5 3.5 5.4 5.0 5.6 3.5 30.3 18.8 Area (1.0} (1. 7) (2.1) (2.2) (3.5} (1.5} (22.4) (12.0}

Ches. Light 4/10 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.9 4.2 2.9 13.8 9.1 Tower (1.0) (1.4) (0.8) (1.4) (2.6} (1.2} (12.2) (7.0)

Santore Wreck 1/8 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.9 4.0 3.6 12.0 13.0 (---) (0.9) (---) (2.1) (---) (2.0) (----) (8.4)

Concrete Ships 2/5 2.5 2.6 5.5 3.8 3.5 2.6 20.5 9.2 (0.7) (0.6} (3.5) (3.0) (0.7) (0.6) (16.3) (5.8)

Cape Henry 9/6 2.4 3.3 3.4 2.7 3.0 3.5 11.0 9.0 Wrecks (0.5) (0.5} (1.9) (1.0} (0.9) (0.6) (8.3) (2.4)

'<!'\

Tugboat Wreck 7/0 3.3 4.1 5.3 20.6 (1.0) (2.0) (2.1) (8. 7)

Cape Charles 1/4 3.0 2.8 1.0 4.2 3.0 3.2 3.0 12.5 Wreck (---) (1.0) (---) (2.4) (---) (1.0) (----) (6.2)

Parramore Reef 2/0 4.0 2.0 4.5 9.0 co. 7) ( 0 } (0.7) (1.4)

Parramore Test 2/3 3.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 6.7 3.0 12.5 Reef ( 0 ) (1.0) ( 0 ) (2.0) ( 0 ) (3.1) ( 0 ) (26.6)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46

Table 3. (continued)

Location Tota18

Trips

LowerbChes. Bay 41/93 Sites

Offshore Sitesc 39/49

Fishing Effort Parameters (mean and Anglers Per Trip

1987 1988

2.6 (0.7)

3.2 (1.1)

2.9 (1.1)

3.0 (1.4)

Hours Fished Rods Fished Per Trip Per Trip

1987 1988 1987 1988

4.2 (1.9)

4.4 (1.9)

3.9 (2.2)

3.7 (2.0)

3.1 (1.2)

5.0 (2.9)

3.2 (1.4)

3.4 (1.6}

8Total trips sampled in 1987 and 1988. respectively.

S.D.) Rod Hours

Per Trip 1987 1988

13.2 13.0 (7 .8) (10.2}

23.1 13.5 (18.2} (11.3}

bCombined trips to CBBT Islands. The Cell, E. Ocean View Reef. Concrete Ships. Cape Henry Wrecks.

cCombined trips to Ches. Light Tower Reef. Triangle Wrecks Reef and Area, Ches. Light Tower. Santore Wreck. Tugboat Wreck.

47

~

~

Table 4. Distribution of 1987 fishing effort by targeted species for trigs made to lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites (excludes Gwynn Island Test Reef).

Total Targeted SEecies b - 1987 Month Trips Sea Bass Tautog Flounder Trout Spot Croaker Amberj ack Other

February 1 --% 100% --% --% --% --% --% --%

March 3 100

April 18 94 6

May 17 12 69 19

June 13 31 54 8 8

July 16 50 50

August 12 50 25 25

September 13 23 38 8 31c

October 26 35 62 4C

November 5 2 80 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Season 123 27 61 2 1 1 4 4C

aincludes trips to sites listed in Table 1 (96 trips) and trips to less frequented sites captured in the sampling program, e.g. the Tiger, Powell, and Hanks wrecks offshore and locations in the Bay such as a barge (C-10 buoy) and plane wreck off Cape Charles, etc.

bif several "targeted species" were specified during an interview, the first species mentioned was considered the principal species sought.

cKing mackerel trips (4% of sample for season).

48

Table 5. Distribution of 1988 fishing effort by targeted species for trigs made to lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites (excludes Gwynn Island Test Reef).

Tarseted S2eciesb- 1988 Month Trips Sea Bass Tautog Flounder Trout Spot Croaker Amberjack Other

April 13 8% 66% --% --% --% --% --% 31%c

May 35 17 63 --% 17 3C

June 19 16 11 53 11 5 5

July 21 14 5 19 29 5 14 14

August 19 5 5 11 16 11 37 16c

September 23 35 4 9 22 9 17d/4e

October 32 41 9 28 9 3 3 6c

November 25 32 36 4 5 lc/20f

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Season 187 23 25 14 11 6 3 7 11c-f

a Includes trips to sites listed in Table 1 (155 trips) and trips to other less frequented sites captured in the sampling program. e.g. the Tiger. Ricks. and Doxy Girl wrecks offshore and locations in the Bay such as a plane wreck off Cape Charles. obstructions near Fort Monroe. the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel islands, etc.

bif several "targeted species" were specified during an interview. the first species mentioned was considered the principal species sought.

cBluefish trips (4% of sample for season).

dKing mackerel trips (2% of sample for season).

eSpani~h mackerel trips (2% of sample for season).

£Striped bass trips (3% of sample for season).

49

)

V1 0

) } ) } )

Table 6. Relative contribution of species to the total "kept" catch for the E. Ocean View Reef. Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Islands. Chesapeake Light Tower Reef. and Triangle Wrecks Area.

Relative Freguency {%) No. a No. Kept b Tautog Sea Bass Spot Croaker Bluefish Other

Location

E. Ocean View Reef

Trips

3/16

Fish

NAc/171

1987 1988 1987 1988

0 4.6

1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

3.5 76.0 0 15.7d

Ches. Bay Br. Tunnel Islands

23/45 1307/1002 35.8 21.4 13.0 6.8 5.2 8.6 31.7 5.6 3.9 7.4 1.od 50.0e

The Cell 4/21

Ches. Light 11/18 Tower Reef

Triangle Wrks. Area

16/13

NA/291

289/558 37.4

382/1023 11.3

39.8 1.7

6.9 60.6 88.0

1.4 88.7 92.8

0

0

0.6

0

0

0

0

1.7

0

0

0.3

0

5.5

0

1.0

~umber of fishing trips sampled in 1987 and 1988. respectively. Total number of fish recorded as "kept" for trips sampled in 1987 and 1988. respectively.

~Not appropriate since sample size too small to be representative of site. Flounder.

0

eGray trout - 21.6%: flounder - 11.2%; striped bass - 8.4%: Spanish mackerel - 5.0%: sea mullet -1.6%; oyster toadfish - 0.8%; sand shark - 0.4%; conger eel {Conger oceanicus) - 0.4%; false

£albacore {Euthynnus alletteratus) - 0.2%. Flounder - 40.2%; porgy (scup. Stenatomus chrysops) - 5.2%; gray trout - 4.4%: northern puffer {Sphoeroides maculatus) - 0.6%.

:spanish mackerel. Spanish mackerel - 3.8%; amberjack - 0.5%; king mackerel - 0.4%: spiny dogfish (Sgualus acanthias) -

.0.4%. 1i.ing cod (Urophycis chuss) - 4.2%; gray trout - 0.4%.

)

Table 7. Sea bass catches on trips targeting sea bass-tautog at lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

SEA BASS--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG Catchl, No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch8

Trips Rod Hours .Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (ii) Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

""" Ches. Bay 15 14 253 118 65 49 1.4 1.5 56 68 0.4e 0.6f 0.6e 1.3f Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 0 10 146 0 100 of o.2f

Ches. Light 9 12 161 139 175 438 1.2 2.2 15 4 1.2 1.1*f 1.3 3.3*f Tower Reef

Ches. Light 3 1 47 15 41 0 1.5 --- 0 0 1.3 0 0.9 0 Tower

"" E. Ocean 0 3 12 0 --- 0 --- 100 --- 0 0.5 View Reef

Tri.Wrks .Rf. 9 5 236 102 192 500 2.0 1.5 0 12 1.6 7.4*£ 0.8 5.6*f

Tri. Wrks. 14 13 460 244 291 884 2.0 1.5 0 9 1.3e 6*f 0.6 4.o*f 5. ""' Area

Santore Wrk. 0 6 76 90 1.3 43 1.5 2.1

Cape Henry 7 6 51 54 84 66 1.2 1.0 34 0 2.0 1.2f 2.5e 1.2£ Wrecks

~

Cape 1 3 3 34 0 0 --- --- 0 --- 0 0 0 0 Charles Wreck

Parramore 2 3 6 88 15 550 2.0 0.9 73 24 5.0 5.5 9.2 8.2 Test Reef

Parramore 2 0 18 --- 125 --- 1.0 --- 32 --- 6.9 --- 10.0 ---Reef -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51

Table 7 (continued).

SEA BASS--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG Catch8 No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release

Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Lower Ches. 22 34 304 336 149 115 1.3 1.2 Bay Sites C

Offshgre 32 32 808 474 521 1412 1. 7 1.7 Sites

aPounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

46 54 0.6 0.4f

8 11 1.1 5.2*f

Catchb Rate (ii)

1987 1988

1.0 0.9f

0.7 3.4*f

cCombined trips to CBBT Islands, The Cell, E. Ocean View Reef, Cape Henry Wrecks.

dCombined trips to Ches. Light Tower Reef, Ches. Light Tower, Triangle Wrecks Reef and Area, Santore \.Jreck.

Statistical test results (Mann-Whitney U-Test, corrected for ties).

* ' Catch rates significantly different between years (P~0.05).

8 1987 catch rates significantly different (P~0.05): CBBT Is. vs. Cape Henry Wrecks; CBBT Is. vs. Tri. Wrks. Area.

f1988 catch rates significantly different (P<0.05): CBBT Is. vs. Ches. Light Tower Reef and Tri. Wrks. Area: Ches. Light Tower Reef-vs. Cape Henry Wrecks and The Cell; The Cell vs. Tri. Wrks. Reef, Tri. Wrks. Area, and Offshore Sites; Lower Ches. Bay Sites vs. Offshore Sites.

52

Table 8. Tautog catches on trips targeting sea bass-tautog at lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

TAUTOG--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG Catch8 l,

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (/#)

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Ches. Bay 15 14 253 118 418 214 2.7 3.7 3 9 4.5e 6.7f 1. 7e 2.of Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 0 10 146 116 3.7 2 3.0f o.8£ ~

Ches. Light 9 12 161 139 108 39 3.5 3.7 3 0 2.3 1.0£ 0.7e 0.3f Tower Reef

Ches. Light 3 1 47 15 4 0 3.5 --- 82 0 0.3 of 0.5 of Tower

~

E. Ocean 0 3 12 0 --- --- 0 0 0 View Reef

Tri. Wrks. Rf. 9 5 236 102 23 0 3.2 36 100 0.3e of 0.2e O.lf

Tri. Wrks. 14 13 460 244 39 15 4.6 5.5 40 40 0.4e 0.3£ O.le O.lf ~ Area

Santore Wrk. 0 6 76 21 5.0 0 1.4 0.3

Cape Henry 7 6 51 54 6 31 2.5 3.0 0 0 0.3e 1.7£ O.le 0.6 Wrecks

""' Cape 1 3 3 34 0 32 --- 2.7 100 29 0 2.5 0.3 1.3 Charles Wreck

Parramore 2 3 6 88 2 30 3.0 4.5 0 17 1.0 1.5 0.3 0.4 Test Reef

Parramore 2 0 18 --- 0 --- --- --- 0 --- 0 0 Reef -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53

Table 8 (continued).

TAUTOG--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG

Location

Lower Ches. Bay Sites C

Offshgre Sites

No. Trips

1987 1988

22 34

32 32

No. Rod Hours 1987 1988

304 336

808 474

Total Kept

1987 1988

424 361

285 75

a Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

Mean Wt. Release Catch8

Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

2.7 3.6 3 6 3.8 1.lf

3.4 4.4 17 12 1.2e 0.7f

b Catch per rod hour for all kept and released fish combined.

Catch Rate (ii)

1987 1988

1.4 3.9f

0.4e o.2*f

cCombined trips to CBBT Islands. The Cell. E. Ocean View Reef. Cape Henry Wrecks.

dCombined trips to Ches. Light Tower Reef. Ches. Light Tower. Triangle Wrecks Reef and Area. Santore Wreck.

Statistical test results (Mann-Whitney U-Test. corrected for ties).

* Catch rates significantly different between years (P!0.05).

e1987 catch rates significantly different (P!0.05): Light Tower Reef. Tri. Wrks. Reef. Tri. Wrks. Area. vs. Offshore Sites: Ches. Light Tower Reef vs. Tri. Tri. Wrks. Reef and Tri. Wrks. Area.

CBBT Is. vs. Cape Henry Wrecks, Ches. and Offshore Sites: Cape Henry Wrecks Wrks. Reef: Lower Ches. Bay Sites vs.

fl988 catch rates significantly different (P<0.05): The Cell vs. Tri. Wrks. Reef, Tri. Wrks. Area. and Offshore Sites: CBBT Is. vs-: Cape Henry Wrecks. Ches. Light Tower Reef, Tri. Wrks. Reef, Tri. Wrks. Area, and Offshore Sites: Lower Ches. Bay Sites vs. Tri. Wrks. Reef, Tri. Wrks. Area, and Offshore Sites.

54

Table 9. Spot catches for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot-croaker-trout-flounder) and spot-croaker only at lower Chesapeake Bay "wreck fishing" sites in 1987

Location

and 1988.

SPOT--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

No. Trips

1987 1988

No. Rod Hours 1987 1988

Total Kept

1987 1988

Mean Wt. Release Catch Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Catch Rate (ti)

1987 1988

Ches. Bay Bridge Tunnel Is.

7 23 72 323 68 63 1.1 0.8 42 39 1.1 0.2 1.6 0.3

The Cell

E. Ocean View Reef

Concrete Ships

2

3

1

11

11

4

14 253

23 77

9 40

0

0

0

2

6

0.8

0.5

0 --- ---

0

0

0 0

0 0

0 100 0

0

0 0.1

0 0 0.2

Lower Che9. 13 Bay Sites

49 118 693 68 71 1.1 0.7 42 40 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.2

SPOT--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

Ches. Bay 3 4 29 41 68 50 1.1 0.8 27 44 2.6 0.9 3.2 2.2 Bridge Tunnel Is.

The Cell 0 3 62 2 0.8 0 oc oc

E. Ocean 2 7 21 45 0 6 0.5 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 View Reef

Concrete 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Ships ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower Ches. Bay Sites

5 14 50 148 68 58 1.1 0.7

:Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

27 41 1.5 0.3 1.9 0.7

Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined. ~Fish caught but catch rate!. 0.05 (catch rates rounded off to nearest 0.1).

Combined trips to CBBT Islands. The Cell. E. Ocean View Reef, Concrete Ships.

55

~

~

~

Table 10. Croaker catches for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot-croaker-trout-flounder} and spot-croaker only at lower Chesapeake Bay "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

CROAKER--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate(#)

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Ches. Bay 7 23 72 323 413 44 1.8 1.1 11 41 10.2 o.2*e 6.5 o.2*e Bridge Tunnel Is.

The Cell 2 11 14 253 0 5 1.5 0 0 0 oce 0 oce

E. Ocean 3 11 23 77 125 130 1.5 0.9 0 20 8.2 1.6e 5.4 2.le View Reef

Concrete 1 4 9 40 0 2 --- 0.8 0 0 0 oc 0 oc Ships

-------~--~---------------------------------------------------------------------------7.8 * * Lower Chea. 13 49 118 693 538 181 1.7 1.0 9 26 0.3 5.0 0.4

Bay Sites

CROAKER--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

Ches. Bay 3 4 29 41 405 44 1.8 1.1 s 41 24.9 1.2 15.1 1.8 Bridge Tunnel Is.

The Cell 0 3 62 5 1.5 0 0.1 0.1

E. Ocean 2 7 21 45 125 74 1.5 1.0 0 30 8.9 1.7 6.0 2.4 View Reef

Concrete 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Ships -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56

~-

Table 10 (continued).

CROAKER--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

Location

No. Trips

1987 1988

No. Rod Hours 1987 1988

Total Kept

1987 1988

Mean Wt. Release Catch Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Catch Rate(#)

1987 1988

Lower Ches. Bay Sites

5 14 50 148 530 123 1.7 1.1 6 34 18.2 0.9* 11.3 1.2*

a Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

cFish caught but catch rate~ 0.05 (catch rates rounded off to nearest 0.1).

dCombined trips to CBBT Islands. The Cell. E. Ocean View Reef. Concrete Ships.

Statistical test results (Mann-Whitney U-Test. corrected for ties).

* Catch rates significantly different between years (P~0.05).

8 1988 catch rates significantly different (P~0.05): CBBT Is. vs. E. Ocean View Reef; The Cell vs. E. Ocean View Reef.

57

~

Table 11. Gray trout c·atches for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot-croaker-trout­flounder) and gray trout only at lower Chesapeake "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

GRAY TROUT--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (fl)

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Ches. Bay 7 23 72 323 103 216 2.0 1.5 47 17 2.9 1.of 2.7 o.at Bridge Tunnel Is.

The Cell 2 11 14 253 0 13 3.6 0 0 0 0.2£ 0 oc

E. Ocean 3 11 23 77 0 0 0 0 0 of 0 of View Reef

Concrete 1 4 9 40 23 13 1.0 2.0 0 0 2.6 0.7 2.6 0.3 Ships ---------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower Ches. 13 49 118 693 126 242 1.8 1.6 42 15 2.0 0.6 1.8 0.4 Bay Sites C

GRAY TROUT--TARGET SPECIES: GRAY TROUT

Ches. Bay Bridge Tunnel Is.

The Cell

1 8

1 2

12 102 102 214 2.0 1.5

8 20 0 9 --- 3.9

47 17 17.0 3.1 16.0 2.5

0 0 0 1.8 0 0.4

Lower Ches. 3d 12e 29 142 125 230 1.8 1.6 42 16 7.8 2.5 7.4 1.9 Bay Sites

a bPounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only). Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

~Combined trips to listed sites. Includes one "trout" trip to the Concrete Ships.

:Includes one "trout" trip each to the Concrete Ships and the E. Ocean View Reef. 1988 catch rates significantly different (P!.0.05): CBBT Is. vs. The Cell and E. Ocean View Reef

58

"'"I

Table 12. Flounder catches for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot-croaker-trout­flounder) and flounder only at lower Chesapeake Bay "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (II)

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Ches. Bay 7 23 72 323 10 100 1.9 2.1 29 8 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 Bridge Tunnel Is.

The Cell 2 11 14 253 14 117 1.5 2.4 0 0 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.5

E. Ocean 3 11 23 77 0 22 2.4 0 19 0 0.7 0 0.4 View Reef

Concrete 1 4 9 40 0 49 --- 2.5 0 0 0 3.1 0 1.2 Ships

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower Ches. 13 49 118 693 24 228 1.7 2.3 14 5 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.4 Bay Sites C

TARGET SPECIES: FLOUNDER

Ches. Bay 3 11 31 180 5 99 3.1 2.1 0 5 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.6 Bridge Tunnel Is.

The Cell 1 6 6 171 14 116 1.5 2.3 0 0 3.5 1.6 2.3 0.7

E. Ocean 1 3 2 24 0 10 3.1 0 17 0 1.3 0 0.5 View Reef

Concrete 0 3 28 48 --- 2.5 0 --- 4.3 --- 1.7 Ships ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower Ches. 5 23 39 403 19 273 1.9 2.3 0 2 0.9 1.5 0.5 0.7 Bay Sites

:Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only). Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

cCombined trips to listed sites.

59

Table 13. Bluefish catches for trips targeting desirable species (spot-croaker-trout-sea bass-tautog-flounder-bluefish-Spanish mackerel-king mackerel-amberjack) and bluefish only at lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites where bluefish were caught in 1987 and 1988.

BLUEFISH--TARGET SPECIES: ALL DESIRABLE SPECIES e No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch4 Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (fl)

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Ches. Bay 21 41 301 493 36 74 1.5 2.0 0 41 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 '""I Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 3 21 34 399 1 16 7.0 1.5 0 0 0.2 0.1 oc oc

Ches. Light 11 18 205 221 1 0 9.0 0 0 oc 0 oc 0 Tower Reef

Ches. Light 4 10 55 91 0 32 --- 9.9 0 20 0 3.5 0 0.4 Tower

Concrete 2 5 41 46 1 0 3.2 --- 67 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 Ships

Triangle 7 5 168 102 12 11 15.5 10.7 0 0 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 Wrks. Reef

Triangle 13 13 401 244 12 11 15.5 10.7 8 0 0.5 o.s oc oc Wrks. Area

Cape Henry 9 6 99 54 24 0 2.0 --- 0 0 0.5 0 0.2 0 Wrecks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower Che5. 38 88 498 1085 62 90 1.8 1.9 3 37 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Bay Sites

Offshore 36 49 817 660 13 43 15.0 10.1 7 16 0.2 0.7 oc 0.1 Sites e

60

Table 13 (continued).

BLUEFISH--TARGET SPECIES: BLUEFISH

Lower Ches. Bay Sites

52 6 2 12 5.1 1.2

Ches. Light Tower

0 2 8 8 6.5

aPounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

50 0 0.2 2.5

50 --- 6.5

cFish caught but catch rate~ 0.05 (catch rates rounded off to nearest 0.1).

0.1 2.0

2.0

dCombined trips to CBBT Islands, The Cell, E. Ocean View Reef (3 trips - 1987; 15 trips - 1988, on which no bluefish were caught), Concrete Ships. Cape Henry Wrecks.

eCombined trips to Ches. Light Tower Reef. Light Tower. Triangle Reef Wrecks and Area. Santore Wreck (1 trip - 1987; 8 trips - 1988 on which no bluefish were caught).

£Combined trips to Concrete Ships (1) and The Cell (1).

Scombined trips to CBBT Islands (1) and E. Ocean View Reef (1).

61

Table 14. Amberjack catches for trips targeting amberjack at offshore "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

AMBERJACK--TARGET SPECIES: AMBERJACK

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (/J)

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Santore 0 1 12 9 --- 35.0 --- 0 --- 26.2 --- 0.8 Wreck

Ches. Light 1 7 8 68 0 3 --- 58.0 0 93 0 2.6 0 0.6 Tower

Ches.Light 1 3 36 63 0 3 --- 50.0 0 50 0 2.4 0 0.1 Tower Reef

Tri. Wrks. 2 0 25 --- 4 --- 40.0 --- 50 --- 6.4 --- 0.3 ---Area

Offshore 69 143 4 15 40.0 42.6 50 73 2.3 4.5 0.1 0.4

a Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for all fish (kept and released).

cCombined trips to listed sites.

62

Table 15. Spanish mackerel. king mackerel and striped bass catches for trips targeting these species. respectively. at "wreck fishing" sites in 1987 and 1988.

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (fl)

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

SPANISH MACKEREL--TARGET SPECIES: SPANISH MACKEREL

Ches. Bay 0 3 --- 50 --- 47 --- 2.4 0 --- 2.2 --- 0.9 Br. Tun. Is.

Santore 0 1 --- 16 2 --- 2.0 0 --- 0.2 --- 0.1 Wreck

KING MACKEREL--TARGET SPECIES: KING MACKEREL

Santore 1 0 12 4 12.0 --- 0 -- 4.0 --- 0.3 ---Wreck

Cape Henry 2 0 48 8 7.0 --- 0 --- 1.2 --- 0.2 ---Wrecks

Ches. Light 1 2 8 16 0 2 --- 15.0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0.1 Tower Reef

Offshore Sites

24 16 4 2 12.0 15.0 0 0 2.0 1.9 0.2 0.1

STRIPED BASS--TARGET SPECIES: STRIPED BASS

Ches. Bay 0 5 --- 107 --- 89 12.4 --- 34 --- 12.0 --- 1.3 Br. Tun. Is.

a Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for all fish (kept and released).

cCombined trips sites listed plus Tugboat Wreck (1).

d Chesapeake Light Tower Trips (2).

63

Table 16A. Distribution of fishing quality ratings for certain lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites with and without consideration for species targeted on trips in 1987 and 1988 {sites fished less than 10 times overall in the sampling program are not listed).

Relative Freguencz of Fishing gualitz Rating No. Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Unspecified

Location Trips a 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 ""'

TARGET SPECIES NOT CONSIDERED

Ches. Bay 23/45 4% 16% 13% 29% 17% 16% ---% 4% 26% 31% 39% 4% Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 4/21 19 25 10 25 19 38 14 50

Ches. Light 4/10 25 30 30 10 10 75 20 Tower

Ches. Light 11/18 9 11 9 28 9 17 17 17 73 11 Tower Reef

E. Ocean 3/16 --- 56 67 19 25 33 View Reef

Tri. Wrks. 16/13 --- 38 6 31 23 6 88 ""' Area

------------------~-----------------~----------------------------------------------------Lower Cheg. 41/93 7 26 12 17 24 16 2 18 17 19 37 3 Bay Sites

AO!\ Offshore 39/49 8 22 2 16 8 20 14 2 8 79 18 Sites C

TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG

Ches. Bay 15/14 7 21 13 38 13 7 7 27 14 40 14 Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 0/10 10 20 10 30 30

Ches. Light 3/1 100 100 1!11\\ Tower

Ches. Light 9/12 -- 8 11 42 11 8 17 78 17 Tower Reef

E. Ocean 0/3 100 View Reef

""' 64

Table 16A (continued).

Relative Frequency of Fishing Quality Rating No. Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

Location T . a rips 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Tri. Wrks. 14/13 --­Area

Lower Ches. 22/34 14 Bay Sites

Offshore 32/32 ---Sites C

Ches. Bay 7/23 Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 2/11

E. Ocean 3/11 View Reef

TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG (continued)

38 31 23 7

29 14 24 14 10 4 21 23 17

19 3 22 3 16 12 9

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

17 14 35 29 26 4 14 17

27 50 27 45

36 67 27 36

Unspecified 1987 1988

93 8

31 10

94 22

43

50

33

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower Che&• 13/49 --- 24 15 18 31 24 22 8 10 46 Bay Sites

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

Ches. Bay 3/4 25 67 50 20 25 Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 0/3 67 33

E. Ocean 2/7 29 100 43 29 View Reef ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower Ches. 5/14 --­Bay Sitesc

36 80

65

36 21 20 7

Table 16A (continued).

Relative Frequency of Fishing Quality Rating Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

Location No. Tripsa 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

Ches. Bay 1/8 Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 1/2

Lower Ches. 3?12f --­Bay Sites

Ches. Bay 3/11 ---Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell

E. Ocean View Reef

1/6

1/3

Lower Ches. 5/23 --­Bay Sitesc

25

so 100

25 33

9 33

67

17 20

TARGET SPECIES: TROUT

25 25

50

25 25

TARGET SPECIES: FLOUNDER

55 18

33

26 17

8

9

67

33

30

25

17

9

9

Unspecified 1987 1988

100

67

67

100

100

80

8Number of trips sampled in 1987 and 1988, respectively, for targeted species groups indicated.

bincludes sites listed plus trips to Concrete Ships and Cape Henry Wrecks.

cincludes sites listed plus trips to Santore Wreck and Tugboat Wreck (1987 only).

dCombined trips to listed sites.

eincludes one "trout" trip to Concrete Ships.

f Includes one "trout" trip each to Concrete Ships and E. Ocean View Reef.

66

Table 16B. Weighted quality ratings for certain lower Chesapeake Bay and offshore "wreck fishing" sites with and without consideration for species targeted on trips in 1988.

Weighted Quality Ratings

~ Location Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Total Rank

TARGET SPECIES NOT CONSIDERED

Ches. Bay 1.6 5.8 4.8 1.6 15.5 29.3 2

"" Br. Tunn. Is.

The Cell 1.9 2.0 5.7 15.2 7.0 31.8 1

Ches. Light 3.0 9.0 4.0 5.0 21.0 6 Tower

""I Ches. Light 1.1 5.6 5.1 6.8 8.5 27.1 3 Tower Reef

E. Ocean 5.6 5.7 10.0 21.3 5 View Reef

""' Tri. Wrks. 3.8 9.3 9.2 22.3 4 Area -----------------~-------------------------------------------------------------Lower Ches. 2.6 3.4 4.8 7.2 9.5 27.5 l Bay Sites

~

Offshore 2.2 3.2 6.0 5.6 4.0 21.0 2 Sites

TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG ".!.'\

Ches. Bay 2.1 7.6 2.1 2.8 7.0 21.6 3 Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 1.0 4.0 3.0 12.0 15.0 35 1 A

Ches. Light 10.0 10.0 5 Tower

Ches. Light 0.8 8.4 3.2 8.5 20.9 4 Tower Reef

67

Table 16B (continued).

Weighted Quality Ratings Location Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Total Rank

TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG {continued)

E. Ocean 10.0 10.0 5 View Reef

Tri. Wrks. 3.8 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.5 22.3 2 '"°I Area

Lower Ches. 2.9 4.8 3.0 8.4 8.5 27.6 1 Bay Sites

Offshore 1. 9 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.5 20.4 2 ~ Sites

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

Ches. Bay 1.7 7.0 7.8 1.6 8.5 26.6 2 Br. Tun. Is.

The Cell 2.7 8.1 18 28.8 1

E. Ocean 3.6 8.1 14.4 26.1 3 View Reef

~

Lower Ches. Bay Sites 2.4 4.8 7.2 8.8 5.0 28.2

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

"" Lower Ches. Bay Sites 2.4 3.6 7.2 8.8 5.0 27.0

TARGET SPECIES: TROUT

~ Lower Ches. Bay Sites 2.5 5.0 1.5 3.2 8.5 26.7

TARGET SPECIES: FLOUNDER

Lower Ches.

"" Bay Sites 1.7 5.2 5.1 12 4.5 28.5

8weighted values obtained by assigning values of 10.20.30.40.50 to respective quality rankings (poor. fair. good. very good. excellent) and multiplying

b!asfgned values times relative frequencies in Table 16A. • Same as in Table 16A.

68

Table 17. Distribution of fishing effort sampled at Gwynn Island Test Reef !!", in 1987 and 1988.

Fishins Effort No. Trifs Rel. Freg,. Rod-Hours Rel. Freg.

Month 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May 4 4 6.7% 4.8% 10 31 1.4% 3.8%

June 7 5 11.7 6.0 104 44 14.9 5.4

July 11 22 18.3 26.5 88 207 12.6 25.6

August 11 21 18.3 25.3 157 247 22.5 30.5

September 7 22 11.7 26.5 93 180 13.3 22.2

October 17 6 28.3 7.2 227 66 32.6 8.2

November 3 3 5.0 3.6 18 34 2.6 4.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Season Total 60 83 697 809

"""I

69

Table 18. Fishing effort parameters of sampled trips targeting the Gwynn RI Island Test Reef in 1987 and 1988.

Fishing Effort Parameters (mean and S.D.) Anglers Hours Fished Rods Fished Rod Hours

Total8 Per Trip Per Trip Per Trip Per Trip -"" Month Trips 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May 4/4 2.5 2.0 1.8 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.8 (0.6) (0.0) (1.0) (1.4) (0.6) (0.6) (1.4) (4.9)

"'I June 7/5 3.6 2.4 3.7 2.8 3.7 2.8 14.9 8.8 (2.0) (2.1) (2.0) (1.1) (1.8) (1.8) (11. 7) (8.7)

July 11/22 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.4 8.0 9.4 (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (1.1) (1.3) (1.5) (6.5) (6.0)

"""' August 11/21 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.1 3.7 3.4 14.3 11.8 (1.2) (1.6) (1.9) (1. 7) (1.1) (1.8) (9.1) (10.8)

September 7/22 3.4 3.0 3.4 2.7 3.7 2.9 13.3 8.2 (1.5) (1.3) (1.8) (1. 7) (1.4) (1.3) (8.9) (6.3)

~ October 17 /6 3.3 3.7 3.5 2.8 3.4 3.8 13.4 11.0 (1.4) (1.0) (1. 7) (1.3) (1.4) (0.8) (10.8) (5. 8)

November 3/3 2.3 2.3 2.7 4.3 2.3 2.3 6.0 11.3 (0.6) (0.6) (1.2) (3. 2) (0.6) (0.6) (2.0) (11.0)

--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------n,,, Season 60/83 3.2 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.2 11.6 9.8

(1.4) (1.4) (1.7) (1.5) (1.3) (1.4) (9.3) (7.7)

8Total trips sampled in 1987 and 1988. respectively.

70

Table 19. Distribution of Gwynn Island Test Reef fishing effort by targeted species in 1987 and 1988.

Month

May

June

July

August

Totalb Trips

4/4

7/5

11/22

11/21

September 7/22

October 17/6

November 3/3

Season 60/83

Sea Bass Tautog 1987 1988 1987 1988

--% --% 25% --%

5

6 6 33

100 100

2 8 7

T S . a arget peci.es

Trout 1987 1988

Spot 1987 1988

--% --% 25%

29

9

27

14

24

18

10

18

33

10

43

64

64

86

47

53

80

95

86

82

33

76

Other 1987 1988

50%c 100%d

29e 20f

27e

18 7

8 If several "targeted species" were specified during an interview. the first species mentioned was considered the principal species sought.

bTotal trips sampled in 1987 and 1988, respectively.

c"Bottomfish"

d25%-flounder; 25% bluefish; 50%-unspecified.

eUnspecified target species.

£Bluefish

g12%-flounder; remainder unspecified.

71

Table 20. Relative contribution of species to total "kept" catch for the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 and 1988.

No. 8

Trips

b -=--------R_e-l_a;...;t;.;;i;..;;v..;;e...;;.Fr-e-9.u_e_n_c,y....,..(%-')'-----------No. Kept Tautog Sea Bass Spot Croaker Trout Other

Month Fish 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May

June

July

4/4 45/41 0

7/5 235/93 0

11/22 419/815 0

August 11/21 437/630 0

7/22 440/625 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 Sept.

Oct. 17/6 873/88 0.8 10.2 2.4 0

Nov. 3/3 23/37 43.5 100 52.2 0

Season 60/83 2472/2329 0.7 2.0 1.3 0

22.2 0 60.0 0 17.8 0

51.9 84.9 17.9 7.5 30.2 4.3 0

82.1 92.5 8.1 3.6 9.8 0.4 0

84.0 87.1 0 1.9 15.8 7.3 0.2f 3.68

89.8 12.8 s.2 1.4 s.o 13.4 o 12.3h

83.0 73.8 0.7 0 12 9 11 4 0.3i 4.5j . . 0 0 0 0 0 0

79.4 81.6 5.3 2.4 13.1 6.4 k 0.2 7.5

~umber of fishing trips sampled in 1987 and 1988. respectively. Total number of fish recorded as "kept" for trips sampled in 1987 and 1988. respectively.

~Flounder - 85.4%; bluefish - 14.6%. Bluefish.

8 Bluefish - 1.3%; "sea mullet" (whiting. Menticirrhus sp.) - 1.3%; sand shark (likely juv. Carcharhinus milberti) - 0.2%; oyster toadfish (Opsanus !!!:!_) - 0.2%; puffers (Sphoeroides

fmaculatus) - 0.1%. Flounder

:sea mullet. Sea mullet - 5.1%; porgy (scup. Stenatomus chrysops) - 4.3%; bluefish - 1.9%; puffers -

.1.0%. 7Flounder - 0.1%; sea mullet - 0.2%. ~Sea mullet - 3.4%: bluefish - 1.1%.

Sea mullet - 3.0%: flounder - 1.5%; bluefish - 1.4%: porgy - 1.2%: oyster toadfish -0.1%.

72

""'I Table 21. Spot catches for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot-croaker-trout-flounder)

and spot-croaker only at the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 and 1988.

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate(#)

Month 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May 3 1 12 15 10 0 1.0 38 0.8 0 1.3 0

June 7 4 106 40 122 79 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.6 1.2 1.2 2.0

July 11 21 88 182 344 754 0.6 0.1 8 6 2.1 2.7 4.2 4.4

August 11 21 157 247 364 549 0.7 0.6 0 37 1.6 1.3 2.3 3.6

September 7 22 93 180 395 455 0.8 0.7 8 47 3.4 1.8* 4.6 4.8

October 15 4 188 54 725 65 0.9 0.9 21 0 3.5 1.1 4.9 1.2

November oc 0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Season 54 73 644 718 1960 1902 0.8 0.7 12 29 2.3 1.7 3.5 3.8

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

May 2 0 6 1 1.0 86 0.2 1.2

June 5 4 72 40 92 79 0.5 0.6 0 0 0.6 1.2 1.3 2.0

July 10 21 78 182 326 754 0.6 0.7 8 6 2.3 2.7 4.6 4.4

~ August 8 18 109 216 340 497 0.7 0.6 0 39 2.1 1.4 3.1 3.8

September 6 18 91 156 386 439 0.8 0.7 8 42 3.4 2.0 4.6 4.8

October 9 2 78 24 692 58 0.9 1.0 21 0 8.3 2.4 11.2 2.4

November 0 0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Season 40 63 434 618 1387 1827 o.8 2.0 12 27 3.2 2.0 4.8 4.0

:Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only). combined. Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish

~No trips made for targeted species. (P~0.05). Mann-Whitney U-Test. Catch rates signficantly different between years

73

Table 22. Croaker catches for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot-croaker-trout-flounder) and spot-croaker only at the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 and

,.....,. 1988.

CROAKER--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (/1)

""-'I Month 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May 3 1 12 15 4 0 1.2 0 1.2 0 0.3 0

June 7 4 106 40 42 7 1.5 1.5 0 0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.2

July 11 21 88 182 32 30 0.8 0.9 0 46 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3

August 11 21 157 247 0 12 0.7 100 64 0 oc oc 0.1

September 7 22 93 180 23 9 1.3 0.5 58 86 0.3 oc* 0.6 0.4 *

~

October 15 4 188 54 6 0 1.2 0 oc 0 oc 0

November od 0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Season 54 73 644 718 107 58 1.2 0.9 27 64 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

CROAKER--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

May 2 0 6 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.2 ~

June 5 4 70 40 25 7 1.9 1.5 0 0 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2

July 10 21 78 182 32 30 0.8 0.9 0 46 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3

August 8 18 109 216 0 12 0.7 100 64 0 oc 0.1 0.2

September 6 18 91 156 23 9 1.3 0.5 58 86 0.3 oc* 0.6 0.4

October 9 2 78 24 6 0 1.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0

November 0 0 ""1\ -------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------

Season 40 63 434 618 87 58 1.3 0.9 32 64 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3

bPounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only). Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

~Fish caught but catch rate~ 0.05 (catch rates rounded off to nearest 0.1). *No trips made for targeted species.

Catch rates significantly different between years (P~0.05) Mann-Whitney U-Test.

74

Table 23. Gray trout catches for trips targeting "bottom fish" (spot-croaker-trout-flounder) and gray trout only at the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 and 1988.

~

GRAY TROUT--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (/J)

-, Month 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May 3 1 12 15 8 0 2.5 11 100 1.7 0 0.8 0.1

June 7 4 106 40 71 4 1.1 1.5 0 0 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.1

July 11 21 88 182 41 4 1.1 1.4 0 20 0.5 oc* 0.5 oc*

August 11 21 157 247 69 46 1.3 1.0 3 2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2

September 7 22 93 180 22 84 1.7 1.2 44 7 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5

October 15 4 188 54 37 10 2.1 1.0 23 0 1.3 0.2 0.8 0.2

November od 0

-------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------Season 54 73 644 718 332 148 1.6 1.2 15 6 0.8 0.2* 0.6 0.2*

GRAY TROUT--TARGET SPECIES: GRAY TROUT

May 1 od 6 8 2.5 0 3.3 1.3 ~

June 2 0 34 11 1.5 0 0.5 0.3

July 1 0 10 12 0.8 0 0.9 1.2

August 3 3 48 31 1 36 0.8 1.0 67 0 od 1.2* 0.1 1.2 ~

September 1 4 2 24 4 57 0.9 1.3 0 0 0.9 3.1 2.0 2.4

October 4 2 78 30 38 4 3.3 1.0 0 0 1.6 0.1 o.s 0.1

November 0 0

""' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Season 12 9 178 85 74 97 2.4 1.2 3 0 1.0 1.4 0.4 1.1

bPounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only). Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

~Fish caught but catch rate~ 0.05 (catch rate rounded off to nearest 0.1). *No trips made for targeted species.

(P~0.05). Mann-Whitney U-Test. Catch rates significantly different between years

75

Table 24. Bluefish catches for trips targeting desirable species (spot-croaker-trout­sea bass-tautog-flounder-bluefish} at the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 and 1988.

Month

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

BLUEFISH--TARGET SPECIES: ALL DESIRABLE SPECIES

No. Trips

1987 1988

4

7

11

11

7

17

3

4

5

22

21

22

6

3

No. Rod Hours 1987 1988

16 31

106 44

88 207

157 247

93 180

227 66

18 34

Total Kept

1987 1988

0

0

6

3

0 11

0 0

0 12

0

0

0

0

Mean Wt. Release Catch Kept (lbs} Rate(%) Rate (lbs) 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

8.4

4.5

1.7

1.5

0 45 0 1.6

0

0

100

0

0

0

0 0 0.3

0 0 0.1

0 0 0

0 0 0.1

0 0

0 0

0

0

Catch Rate (IJ)

1987 1988

0 0.4

0 0.1

0

0 0.1

0

0

0

0

...,_ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------d Season 58 82 673 794 0 32 --- 3.1

8 Pounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

100 14 --- 0.1

cFish caught but catch rate~ 0.05 (catch rates rounded to nearest 0.1).

dOnly one May and one June trip captured in the 1988 sampling program targeted bluefish; no trips targeting bluefish were recorded in 1987.

76

A.

Table 25. Sea bass catches for trips targeting sea bass-tautog at the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 and 1988.

SEA BASS--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS - TAUTOG

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%} Rate (lbs)

Month 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

Season

1

0

0

0

0

2

3

6

0

0

1

0

0

2

3

6

4

25

39 12

18 34

61 71

0

6

12

18

0

0 1.0

0 0.8

0 0.8 ---

aPounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

77

0

83

45

69

0

0 0

0 0.2 0

0 0.5 0

0 0.2 0

Catch Rate (II)

1987 1988

0

0

0.9 0

1.2 0

1.0 0

Table 26. Tautog catches for trips targeting sea bass-tautog at the Gwynn Island Test Reef in 1987 and 1988.

TAUTOG--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS - TAUTOG

No. No. Total Mean Wt. Release Catch Catch Trips Rod Hours Kept Kept (lbs) Rate(%) Rate (lbs) Rate (fl)

Month 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

May 1 0 4 0 0 0 0

June 0 0

July 0 1 25 0 0 0 0

August 0 0

September 0 0

October 2 2 39 12 2 9 4.5 4.0 0 0 0.2 3.0 oc 0.8

November 3 3 18 34 10 37 3.0 6.7 0 0 1. 7 7.3 0.6 1.1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Season 6 6 61 71 12 46 3.2 6.2 0 0 0.6 4.0 0.2 o.6

aPounds caught per rod hour (kept fish only).

b Catch per rod hour for kept and released fish combined.

cFish caught but catch rate< 0.05 (catch rates rounded off to nearest 0.1).

78

Table 27A. Distribution of fishing quality ratings for the Gwynn Island Test Reef with and without consideration for species targeted on trips in 1987 and 1988.

Month No. T

. a rips

Relative Frequency of Fishing Quality Rating Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

TARGET SPECIES NOT CONSIDERED

Unspecified 1987 1988

May 4/4

7/5

--% --% --% 25% --% 50% --% 25% --% --% 100% --%

June

July 11/22 18

August 11/21 36

September 7/22

October 17 /6

November 3/3

41

Season 60/83 22

Season 50/73b 24

Season 39/63 18

Season 9/9 33

Season 6/6 17

20

32

52

45

50

33

40

29

9

9

6

33

10

40

23

10

17

13

64

18

57

6

23

40

23

19

23

22

9

18

29

18

13

9

14

23

17

14

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

41 6 14 28 22 16 15

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

43 3 13 31 21 21 21

TARGET SPECIES: TROUT

33 22 11 22 33 22

TARGET SPECIES: SEABASS-TAUTOG

50 33

9

12

5

6

14

14

5

9

17

67

11

8

8

50

~mber of trips sampled during 1987 and 1988, respectively. Number of trips for which indicated species were targeted by fishing party.

79

71

9

14

18

67

27

20

10

22

50

21

Table 27B. Weighted quality ratings for overall seasonal fishing experiences at the Gwynn Island Test Reef with and without consideration for species targeted on trips in 1987 and 1988.

Weighted Quality Ratings Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Total

1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988

TARGET SPECIES NOT CONSIDERED

2.2 4 2 2.6 6.9 6.6 5.2 5.6 2.5 5.5 18.8 24.3

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

2.4 4.1 1.2 2.8 8.4 6.6 6.4 6.0 3.0 4.0 21.4 23.5

TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER

1.8 4.3 0.6 2.6 9.3 6.3 8.4 8.4 7.0 4.0 27.1 25.6

TARGET SPECIES: TROUT

3.3 3.3 4.4 2.2 6.6 9.9 --- 8.8 --- 14.3 24.2

TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG

1. 7 5.0 6.6 25.0 8.3 30.0

8weighted values obtained by assigning values of 10, 20, 30. 40, 50 to respective quality rankings (poor. fair. good, very good, excellent) and multiplying assigned values times relative frequencies in Table 27A.

80

Table 28. Catch rate comparisons between Gwynn Island Test Reef and other major "wreck fishing" sites with consideration for certain target species in 1987 and 1988.

Location

Gwynn Island Test Reef

The Cell

E. Ocean View Reef

Ches. Bay Br. Tun. Is.

Lower Ches. Ba Sitesc

Gwynn Island Test Reef

The Cell

E. Ocean View Reef

Ches. Bay Br. Tun. Is.

Lower Ches. Ba Sites

Gwynn Island Test Reef

The Cell

E. Ocean View Reef

Ches. Bay Br. Tun. Is.

Lower Ches. Ba Sites

Mean Catch Rates No. Trips

1987 1988 Lbs. Kept Per Rod Hr. No. Caught Per Rod Hour

1987 1988 1987 1988

SPOT--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

54

2

3

7

13

73

11

11

23

49

a

1.1

* 1.7

* 0.1

1.6

1. a"

CROAKER--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

54

2

3

7

13

73

11

11

23

49 1.s°

* 0.1

0.2

* 0.3

6.s°

TROUT--TARGET SPECIES: SPOT-CROAKER-TROUT-FLOUNDER

54

2

3

7

13

73

11

11

23

49

0.8

2.9

2.0

81

* 0.2

0.2

o*

1.0

0.6

0.6

2.7

1.8

3.8*

* 0.1

* 0.2

* 0.2

* 2.1

0.2

0.4

* 0.2

o*

0.8

0.4

Table 28 (continued).

Mean Catch Rates No. Trips Lbs. Kept Per Rod Hr. No. Caught Per Rod Hour

Location 1987 1988 1987 1988

Gwynn Island Test Reef

The Cell

6

0

Ches. Bay Br. 14 Tun. Is.

Cape Henry Wrks. 7

Lower Che3. 21 Bay Sites

Ches. Light 9 Tower Reef

Tri. Wrecks Area 11

Gwynn Island Test Reef

The Cell

6

0

Ches. Bay Br. 14 Tun. Is.

Cape Henry Wrks. 7

Lower Che3. Bay Sites

Ches. Light Tower Reef

Tri. Wrks. Area

21

9

11

SEA BASS--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG

6

10

14

6

34

12

13

0.2

0.4

2.0

0.1

2.3

0.5

0.6

1.2

0.4

* 1.0

* 0.3

TAUTOG--TARGET SPECIES: SEA BASS-TAUTOG

6

10

14

6

34

12

13

0.6

4.3

0.3

3.6

2.3

0.5

4.0

3.0

6.7

1. 7

1.1

1.0

0.3

1987 1988

1.0

0.6

2.5

1.0

0.7

0.2

0.1

1.4

0.7

0.2

o*

0.2

1.3

1.2

0.7

* 0.3

* 0.1

0.6

0.8

2.0

0.6

3.9

0.3

0.1

:Insufficient trips sampled to adequately represent fishing activity. Fish caught but catch rate< 0.05 (catch rates rounded off to nearest 0.1).

~Combined trips to CBBT Is.,-The Cell, E. Ocean View Reef, Concrete Ships. Combined trips to CBBT Is., The Cell, E. Ocean View Reef, Cape Henry Wrecks.

jtatistical test results {Mann-Whitney U-Test, corrected for ties). 1987 catch rates are significantly different between G.I. Test Reef and other

*indicated site{s), (P~0.05), Mann-Whitney U-Test. 1988 catch rates are significantly different between G.I. Test Reef and other indicated site{s), (P~0.05), Mann-Whitney U-Test.

82

REFERENCES

Belcher, Mr. Ronald. 1987; 1988. Manager, R&R Bait and Tackle shop, Hudgins, VA, personal communication.

Bochenek, E., N. Chartier, and J. Lucy. 1989. Virginia's recreational marlin and tuna fishery, 1983-1988: a report to the fishermen. Spec. Rept. in Applied Marine Sci. and Ocean Engineering No. 298, Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, 25p.

Bohnsack, J, and D. Sutherland. 1985. Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bull. Marine Sci. 37(1):11-39.

Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District Office. 1989. Cape Charles, VA, brochure and personal communication.

Cununings, J. 1986. Shipwrecks data base compiled from numerous sources, Cununingsware Products, Joppa, MD, personal communication.

Deltaville Fishing and Conservation Club. 1987. Mr. James 'Wharton, Deltaville, VA; personal communication.

Feigenbaum, D. 1984. Artificial reef study - year I report (1983). Prepared for the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, VA, 29 p.

Feigenbaum, D., C. Blair, M. Bell, J. Martin and M. Kelly. 1985b. artificial reef program - description and results of Year I. Mar. Sci. 37:179-188.

Virginia Bull.

Feigenbaum, D. C. Blair, M. Bushing. L. Parker, D. Devereaux and A. Friedlander. 1986. Artificial reef study: final report prepared for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, VA. Old Dominion University Dept. of Oceanography Tech. Rept. no. 86-2, 93 p.

Feigenbaum, D., C. Blair and A. Provenzano. 1985a, Artificial reef study -Year II report (1984). Prepared for the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, NewportNews, VA, 57 p.

Feigenbaum, D., M. Bushing, A. Friedlander and B. Lowe. 1988. Monitoring of the Gwynn's Island Test Reef, Final Contract Report prepared for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, VA, Old Dominion University Dept. of Oceanography Tech. Rept. No. 88-1, 33 p.

Lucy, J. 1983. Development of Virginia's artificial fishing reefs: a historical outline (1959-1977). Marine Resource Report No. 83-6, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, 5 p.

Lucy, J. 1988. Chart of wrecks and artificial reefs in Virginia waters. Marine Resource Advisory No. 22, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary and Artificial Reef Program, Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

83

Lucy, J., C. Barr, and W. DuPaul. 1988a, Development and implementation of a catch and effort data collection system for monitoring trends in fishing success on Virginia's artificial fishing reefs. Project Completion Report, Year One. Wallop-Breaux Project No. F-63-R, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. Submitted to Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, VA, 67 p.

Lucy, J., N. Chartier, and W. DuPaul. 1988b. Catch trends and fish utilization in Virginia's offshore recreational pelagic fishery. Contract report, Wallop-Breaux Project No. F-62-R. Submitted to Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, VA, 44 p.

Meier, Mr. Michael. 1988; 1989, Fisheries Reef Manager, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia, Newport News, VA, personal communication.

Meier, M., J. Martin, D. Feigenbaum and M. Bell. 1985. Artificial reefs in Virginia: old beginnings and new directions. Ch, 12 in Artificial Reefs, Marine and Freshwater Applications. F. D'Itri (ed.), Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, 589 p.

Robinson, J. 1970. Member, Peninsula Saltwater Sport Fishermen's Assoc., personal communication.

SPSS-X. 1986. SPSS-X User's Guide, 2nd Ed. SPSS-X, Inc., Chicago, IL, 988 p.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1989. Group Hampton Roads Public Service Office, Portsmouth, VA, personal communication.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1987. Fishing in Virginia tidal waters: legal sizes, limits, and other restrictions. Information Leaflet No. 86-1 (revised), 2 p.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). 1989. Virginia's artificial reef program: Where's the reef. Brochure, 1 p.

Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament (VSFT) 1986; 1987; 1988. Annual summary reports, Department of Economic Development, Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Beach, VA. (C. Bain, Director)

Ward, Captain Charles (USN Retired). 1988; 1989. Charter captain and experienced tautog fisherman. Assisted in placing materials on Chesapeake Light Tower Reef, Virginia Beach, VA, personal communication.

84

ARTIFICIAL REEF FISHING STUDY Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062

(Funded by Sport Fish Restoration (Wallop-Breaux) Funds Through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission)

77° 00'

CHESAPEAKE BAY

ARTIFICIAL REEF ANO WRECK STUDY SITES (Sites to be Re-Buoyed By Late Spring 1987)

LOCATION

PARRAMORE TEST REEF 3.8 N.M. from Parramore Coast Guard Tower on Course 115 degrees T

PARRAMORE REEF (Buoy "R-10") 8.7 N.M. from Parramore Coast Guard Tower on Course 102 degrees T

TRIANGLE WRECKS (GA Buoy) 18 N.M. from Chesapeake Light Station on Cou11e 071 degrees T

LIGHT TOWER REEF S.W. of Chesapeake Light Station

GWYNN ISLAND TEST REEF 1.35 N.M. NE cf "Hole-in-the-Wall"

CAPE CHARLES TEST REEF N/NW of Entrance to Cherrystone Inlet immediately east of Buoy "C 12"

LITTLE CREEK (after Aug, 1, 19871 900 yds. off Ocean View Beach W. of Little Creek Entrance

LORAN BEARINGS

41784. 1 /27125.4 41 7 41.0/27126.0 41747.5/27125.2 41744.0/27125.2 41738.0/27126.3

41746.3/27095.5 41744.0/27095.0

41391.4/27020.2 41390. 7 /27020.5 41389.6/27020.0 41386.2/27018.9

41286.2/27103.0

41637 .2 /27299.4

41541.2/27231.0 41539.0/27231.2 41539.4/27230.8

41259.8/27225.3 41259. 7 /27225.0

PARIW«lRE REEF

ATLANTIC OCEAN 37°

* TRIANGLE QQ' WRECl-5

* LIGHT TOWER REEF

REEF MATERIAL

Concrete Pipes Concrete Igloos Concrete Pipes Tire Modules Tire Modules

Vessel: Walter Hines Page Vessel: Mona Island

Vessel: Webster Vessel: George P. Garrison Vessel: James Haviland Vessel: Edgar Clark

60' X 80' Orydock

Tire Modules/Concrete Igloos

Concrete Igloos Tire Modules Concrete Pipes

Concrete Igloos Concrete Igloos

Appendix A. Chart showing locations of artificial reef study sites.

85

ATTENTION WRECK & ARTIFICIAL REEF

FISHERMEN WE NEED YOUR HELP! The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) is beginning a two-year

study to develop catch and effort information for determining trends in recreational fishing on Virginia's artificial fishing reefs. Offshore and Chesapeake Bay sites will be studied. (See chart, reverse side).

The study will help document fishing success rates of experienced fishermen on the reef sites. Study results will be useful to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) in maintaining and expanding its reef program. Primary funding for the study is provided by Sport Fish Restoration (Wallop-Breaux) Funds administered by VMRC.

PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE BOAT FISHERMEN IS NEEDED! If you occasionally fish reef sites, please fill in a line below so we can contact you several times during the fishing season about your catches. We promise to be brief and appreciate your help!

NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. BOAT NAME

Appendix A (cont.) Form for soliciting names and addresses of boating owning wreck and reef fishermen,

86

A

Outdoors 812 Daily Press, Sunday, May JO, 1987

VIMS needs help to see if anglers catch fish at reefs

GLOUCESTER POINT - Re· searchers al the Virginia Institute uf Marine Science need our help. They need to know if we're catch· ing fish on the artificial reefs that's been planted around the lower Chesapeake Bay.

For the past dozen years, the Marine Resource Commission has spent roughly $350,000 building artificial reefs in the Atlantic at such locations as the Chesapeake Light Tower, some 15 miles east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and the Triangle Wrecks, another 15 miles beyond the Light Tower.

Today these reefs are not only providing excellent recreational fishing for such species as black sea bass and tautog, but also pro• vide a sizable commercial catch for watermen.

there.

Jay Mundy

Fishing

"What we need to know nuw," he added. "is ir the fish have started lo hang around the reef all season, like they do on the orf• shore reefs, or if they're just mov­ing in and out. say with the tide, or when they're ,·basing baitfish."

The C,wynn Island site, as with all the sites, were constructed of the best material known at this time, according lo Mike Meier, reef director for VMRC.

The Gwynn Island site was constructed from concrete igloos and old tires, and fashioned after designs perfected by the Japa. nese, world leaders in artificial reef construction.

Artlflclal reef sites

---No.t u----­c:-o_r_ ... _, .. ,,s-.-r PanafflOte tMf No. 2 (Duo, "A,10") 8? navt1c.1 mi• lrom Patramor• Coa11 Gwi•d Tower on COUflO 101 de,gfNt T T--­(0,\.....,, 1, ___ "-1'8111 811Doi\..,_011T . . . _ l.""1T_..., SWol~UQh•­..,_..._.. ........ ·::-.".a,:\··~. 1.a,--NECll,"llall la ..... ~ClwlN--NIHWolon1r ..... toa..rr,......,-. _,.,.,, E 01 Buoy ·-c.1r Latc:-IIC-..... t,1"1) ·

at7114.tf27UU 41f'1.0lj712t,O '41747.5/27125.2 41744.012712U 417311.0/27120.3

"1•e 3121cm s 41 ,., 01270H 0

'1»1.AnJ'WU 41SIO.fl27020.I •ta.tnl'QIDJI 41aJl/27DIU •12en12110, o

··~~ 415"11.2127231 0 41$39 0127231 2 41$3941272301

412111.9121UU

-·00' ......

CGncrtlll "* Conotftl ,.._ C-.plpot ·n.­Tn-

VesHt Wates, HINI Pag,ro v..,..., Mona l:Mand ~-":.:°:".="' Y-tdgorci.t.

eo • ao ft "'-" ____ ,.._ ~ ..... ~h· .. -.

C.--oglom ,,,.~ Conc:roto pc- •.

Since 1983, VMRC has planted four reefs in the bay itself, with a fifth scheduled to be completed on the old ODU site off east Ocean View by August of this year. Two more are located in the Atlantic just off Parramore on the Eastern Shore.

They're laid out in a ragged line. much like the ballast rocks that make up the foundation for Bluefish Rock, a popular fishing spot located just off Grandview Beach in Hampton. The water depth around the Gwynn Island site is about 20 feet.

:OJ~=:--=- .. ,11ae.rnnn.o 1·==; Jon Lucy, coordinator for the

VIMS project. said the reefs In· side the bay are perfect for such species as croaker, spot and floun• der, but there is little proof that fish have taken up residence.

"Part of the problem may be the sites are really test sites and rather small in size. and anglers simply can't locate them." he said.

For example, the Gwynn Js· land site. located at the southern lip of the mouth of the Rappahan­nock River a little more than a mile northeast of the "Hole-in-the­Wall, " the passage between the island and the mainland, is only about 50 yards by 75 yards.

"We know this site marks well on a fish finder." Lucy said. "We know also that some spot, croaker and even flounder have been caught there, because we've al· ready spoken with some fisher• men who had good results fishing

The reef is normally marked with three small. white spar buoys bearing the words "Gwynn·s Island Reef." At the moment there are only two of the buoys in place. the third having blown away with the last north· easter.

"In fact," Meier said, "our big, gest problem right now is keeping the buoys on the site. Anytime you notice one is missing or dam· aged, please call me."

Meier said the buoys will be re­placed this spring.

Lucy said it's interesting lo note that more croaker are caught off the concrete igloos than th,• tires.

"I don't know why at this time," he said. "Maybe you fisher­men have an idea."

Speculation is because the igloos, which measure nine feet by seven feet, stand higher off the bottom than the tire modules.

"Anything standing off the bottom will grow barnacles and such much quicker, which attract bottom-feeder likes croaker," Lucy said.

The other site in the lower bay is located north/northwest of the entrance to Cherrystone Inlet on the Chesapeake side of the East­ern Shore, immediately east of Buoy C-12.

The buoys there have all blown away said Meier.

The reer lies in 25 to 35 feet of water and is laid out in more of a square than the Gwynn Island

reef. "There's a little different

situation here than on the west· ern side of the bay," Meier noted. "The Cape Charles site has pro­duced a few more fish thari Gwynn's Island, especially small sea bass, called Black Wills."

Neither marine expert could say if the reefs were attracting large species such as bluefish, red and black drum, or cobia.

To reach Lucy or Charles Barr. a graduate student helping on the project. call VIMS at Gloucester Point (804) 642-7166 during work hours, or after hours leave a mes­sage on the instltute's answering machine. at 642·7000.

Meier can be reached at VMRC's headquarters in Newport News by calling 247-2263.

Appendix B. Newspaper and periodical articles on Wallop-Breaux reef study

87

WILLIAM AND MARY NEWS

Wednesday, May 13, 1987

VIMS seeks information on fishing reefs

The .lnstitute's Sea Grant Marine Advis­OI)' Servicea Program is conducting a reef fishing study to provide the Virginia Marine Resources Commission with an analysis or catch and fishing effort data. The study will assist in evaluating the maintenance and ex­pansion of exisitinJ as well as new reef sites. Jon Lucy, professor of marine science, is coordinator for the study and is being as­sisted by Charles Barr, a graduate student on the project. The worlc is primiuily funded from Sport F1Sh Restoration (Wallop­Breaux) Funds adminislCRd by VMRC.

The Virginia Institute or Marine Science has begun collecting Clllch information from recreational fishermen using Virginia's ani­ficial fishing reefs.

Appendix B. (cont,)

88

VIMS Continued/romp. 2.

Lucy is requesting that f1Shcnnen who f1Sh the reef sites contact him al VIMS. Fish­ermen who call will be randomly contacted at various times during the fishing season. All information on catches will be lccpt con­fidential and only summariud in the study report.

Lucy and Barr recently mailed flyers to marinas and Virginia Saltwater Fishing Tournament weight stations in another at• ICmpl to reach fishermen.

Fishermen may also contact Lucy at the following address: Reef Fishing Study, Vir­ginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, 23062. He can be reached by phone during working hours at 642-7166. After hours, callers may leave a message with the lnstitute's answering service at 642-7000.

-n 0 ::s M'

}) ) J ) ) )

Hi~hmund Tim..,.•Di•patrh, Tu.....tu~ •. \lu, :i, I •JR7 C-3

Harlow's determination lands 22-pound turkey '.Nt'..-s from all ovrr .• lfrrt'0

S one, of th~ 1ntrresling things that can happen t(( ~ou If you·11 get out in the woods during spring turltey .uson instead of lying in bed dreaming about Jane l'iutey.

"David Harlow of Richmond was in the woods i,ear a Coochland County Ille a few moruings ago at ~ a.m.

:At that Umeof day (day?). boot owls arestlll calling and you can bump into trN:S without even suspectln1 they're tl~tt

• Just after dawn. David beard a gotilller tune ap aaoss tllt lab. He called and called. The gobbler would answer bot wouldn"t walk around the lake. •

. David decided to go to the gobbler, so be sneaked a(ound the lat.e. then called again.

A hc.-n ramt to the call and walked right past him and ntto the br11Sh. Then she started c.-lucltlng for David. so to sprak ··1 dtt1ded to shut up and see bow well she could c19:· he said.

:Th<' gobbler came to her, but got between the real hen and David. David began to think he'd better start sounding gpod again It was now or ntver.

· This time.-. hen and gobbler came to David's call. "She '"'.35 leading him," said David.

• Tht'y were still out of range when something went -:rong. They saw David bat an eye or maybe Just got s~sp1c1ous Both Rew.

David waited half an hour, then walked to where the bJrds had flushed. He hit the caller once; the gobbler

1 ....... =_~_v ___ iJ answered.

It took 30 minutes to work him back but finally. after that three-hour game of musical chairs. the rtobbler re­turned to David.

He was a beaut - 22 pounds with an l l·mch beard . If at first you don·t succeed •.

award goillg Into the Alabama contest. The Alabama tournament wu WOii by Teun Ricky

Cham. .Finl place WU wortll Sl2,000.

• Tbe fishing game, or -Wng closely related. hu recognized another Virginian.

Martin Clavert of Virginia Beacb be.at • field of seven finalists with a cut of 692 feet (that's more than two football fields laid aid to eadl to win the Du Pont Stren Longcutlng Virgillla/Carollnu rqlonal tournament.

Don Koblmaa of Newport News made a cast of 6$0 feet to lintsh second.

The winnen went home with a truckload of lishing gear and outdoor merchanlse. In addition. Calvert won ISOO in cash. He now advances to the June linal la Montana.

• As part of a national campaign ca!INI "Take Pride in • Woo Daves lteeps racking up points 1n nauonal bass America." refuge penonnel at the Cre.at Dismal Swamp

fishing competition. National Wildlife Refuge near Suffolk are mat.ing an This past wttkend. the Chl'Ster rl'l<1d('nt <'aught 37"a effort to better acquaint visitors with the lore. history and

pounds of lighting largemouth bass during th(' $137.000 wildlife of the swamp. Bassmaster Invitational tournament at Cunlcrsv1lle. Ala. On Saturdays and Sundays In May, staff members will

That was good enough to take ISth place in a field of 40 be stationed at Dismal Town parking lot on Wasblngton of the country's top bass lishermen. Daves· seven bass Ditch to provide information and answer questions. Hours were worth Sl.$00 prize money. are from II a.m. to 7 p.m.

With only one more tournament to go before the Bass Information will available on pubhr use programs. Classic in Louisville. Ky .• in August. Daves· outstanding grouptoursandshdepresentatlons.AcccsstoLakeDrum· year of competitive bass fishing has assured him a place mond will be permitted II weather allows. in what is often called the World S.-rirs of angling. I -~~. If you fish saltwater. spe.:ifocally the ship wrecks and

Also. be was in fourth place for bass anglfr of the year ~ficial reefs in Virginia waters. The Virginia Institute

of Marine, Science (VIMS) at GIOllt'eSler Point needs your belp.

VIMS Is coaducting a reef study. TIie purpose as 10 aaalyie how much the reefs are being used by anglers. as well as attempt to measure the success of the reef pro-gram in helping lish populations. .

"We need to identify a cross,section of charter and private boat lisbennen who lisb wrecks and artificial reefs for the study to be suc.-c.-essful." said Jon Lucy. VIMS coordinator for the study.

Over the past several year5. a variety of artifiC'ial reel~ have been formed off the V1rg1nia coast and in the Chesa· peake Bay by sinking barges of tires and even old Liberty ships.

Lucy uks fishermen who fish thf' reefs to contact him He in tum will randomly call anglers at various tam~ during the fishing season for brief informalion about wreck or artifical reef tripi; All information ..-111 ~ krpt confidential.

Contact Jon Lucy. Reef Fishing Study. Virfinia Inst•· lute of Marine Science. Clouc.-ester Point 2lliii . LUC!' can 'be reached durangllie work week at 804-642·7166. or all<"r work or on weekends at the VIMS answering servic-c, at 804-642,7000.

A chart of reel sites and their Loran coordinates •~ available free from VIMS.

The reef study is being fundNI primarily throui:h Sport F~h Restoration (Wallop-Breaux) funds raised through an e:mse In on Gsh1ng equipmenT.

)

·'

REEF FISHING STUDY NEEDS FISHERMEN

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science of the College of William and Mary recently began collecting catch Information from recreational fisher­men fishing the Commonwealth's artificial fishing reefs. The lnstltute's Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services Program Is conducting a Reef Fishing Study to help provide the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) with an analysis of catch and flshng effort data from experienced fishermen utilizing the state's reef sites. The study will assist VMAC's Artlflclal Reef Program in evaluating the maintenance and expansion of existing as well as new reef sites.

"We need to Identify a significant cross section of charter and private boat fishermen who fish wrecks and artiflclal reefs for the study to be successful," said Jon Lucy, coordina­tor for the study.

The work is primarily funded through Sport Fish Restoration (Wallop-Breaux) Funds administered by VMRC.

Lucy and Charles Barr, a graduate student working on the project, tiave identified approximately 100 fisher­men who periodically fish the various wreck and artificial reef sites. A much larger cross section of fishermen is required for the study to meet its objective of defining utilization and productivity of the sites.

Lucy is requesting that fishermen, who fish the reef sites. contact him at VIMS. Fishermen who contact Lucy will be randomly called at various times during the fishing season tor brief Information about recent wreck or artificial reef trips. All information on catches will be kept confidential and only. summarized in the study report.

Lucy and Barr recently mailed flyers to marinas and Virginia Salt­water Fishing Tournament weigh stations concerning the study's need

• llL I l~HLHMAN

JUNE 18. 1987 5

to identify fishermen. Fishermen who have yet to be contacted by the researchers are encouraged to place their name on these flyers, which then wlll be returned to VI MS. Fishermen may alao contact Lucy at the following address: Reef Fishing Study, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Glou­cester Point, VA 23062. Lucy can also be reached during the work week at (804) 642-7166 or after work hours and on weekends by leaving a message on the lnstitute'sanswering service (804) 642-7000.

Reef sites included In the study are the Light Tower Reef, Triangle Wrecks Reef, Parramore Reef and the test reef sites established by Old Dominion University under contract to VMAC. One test reef site Is located off Parramore Island on the Eastern Shore. Others are located inside Chesapeake Bay just north of Cape Charles and off Gynn's Island near Oeltaville. A diagramatic chart of reef sites and their Loran coordinates is available free upcn request.

Appendix B. (cont.) The Fisherman, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland Edition,

DELMAF Publ. Corp. Sag Harbor, N.Y.

90

after-school seminars for ceachers who are interested in furthering their knowledge for future teaching about the Bay. There is no cost IO the classroom teacher, and participating teachers receive packelS of information about the Bay. According to Lee Lawrence, the Bay Team is a "foot in the door" in bringing water resources education into Virginia's curriculum.

The Bay Team has achieved national recognition from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as one of eight oulStanding environmental education programs. The Bay Team is administered by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science through a grant from Virginia's Council on the Environment. For more information or to request an in­school visit, write to: The Bay Team. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062.

New Artificial Reef Site for Virginia Fishermen

Virginia's artificial reef program recently expanded fishing opponunities for recreational fishermen in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Coordinated by the Virginia Marine Resoun:es Commission (VMRC), the reef program used "'Wallop-Breaux" Sport Fish Restoration Funds to establish its 1hird bay reef site in July. Consisting of forty concrete igloo structures and designated a~ the East Ocean View

Reef, the buoyed site is located 2,500 yards west of the entrance to Little Creek off the Ocean View area in Norfolk (site is shown on NOAA Charts No. 12220, 12221, 12256).

The new reef is located on the site of an earlier experimental reef project initiated in the late J 960"s by Old Dominion University (ODU) and local recreational fishing interests. Appro,i.imately one hundred wrecked car bodies and at least one menhaden vessel were initially placed on the site. Prior to deployment of the igloos, a side-scan sonar Slll\ley of the site was conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). ODU researchers dove on the site to take sediment samples and to help verify the sonar survey results. As expec1ed, only portions of the original materials remained in the area. By fall the site is expected to begin attracting sea bass and tautog. Spot, croaker and trout may also be attracted to the reef.

The design of the concrete igloos is the result of a three-year study conducted on test reefs established by ODU under contract 10 VMRC. These 11,000-pound, dome-shaped structures, approximately twelve feet in diameter at the base and seven feet high, have proven to be stable, staying in place on test reef sites in the Bay off Gwynn's Island and Cape Charles, as well as off Parramore Island on the Eastern Shore. "The redevelopment of this site is especially significant in that the concrete igloos were specifically developed for use as artificial reef structures," according to Mr. Mike Meier, fisheries reef manager for VMRC.

As pan of an ongoing Wallop­Breaux funded study of fishing success rates on the state's artificial reefs, VIMS' researchers are seeking to identify fishermen using the East Ocean View Reef.

The VIMS study, beginning in the late fall of 1986, has to date obtained fishing information from over two hundred boat owners who fish the siaie reefs. Through random telephone interviews, VIMS' scientisL\ are seeking to learn which reef sites are producing the most successful fishing trips. The telephone interviews are

brief, no longer than S to 7 minuces, and are designed to gain information on fishing trips made to any reef site during the two-week period preceeding the call. Interviewers ask questions such as how long the reef site was fished. how many rods were used, whac was caught, the state of the tide and current, water temperature and depth of the water. Also, researchers are interested in learning which part of the reef was fished: Were catches made directly over the reef structure or around the perimeter of the reef!

VIMS needs to broaden its existing list of identified boat owners fishing reef sites both in the Bay as well as those offshore (the Light Tower, Triangle Wreck, and Parramore Reefs). The study requires information from a large cross-section of reef/wreck fishermen IO adequately document how the reefs are performing. ·The VIMS" study is designed to take advantage of fishermen's knowledge and fishing experience,· says the study's coordinator, Mr. Jon Lucy. ·By permitting VIMS' researchers to contact them about reef fishing trips, recreational fishermen are contributing to future improvemenlS in the artificial reef program.·

If not already contacted by Lucy or graduate assistant, Charles Barr, boat owners periodically fishing the Bay or offshore artificial reef sites are requested to get in touch with the VIMS' researchers. Charts with Loran coordinates of the reef sites, as well as locations of major wrecks and obstructions found out to 30 miles offshore of Virginia Beach, can be obtained by contacting: Artificial Reef Study, Sea Grant Advisory Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA 23062, (804) 642-7166.

For more information about the reef program, contact Mr. Mike Meier, Fisheries Reef Manager for VMRC, P. 0. Box 756, Newport News, VA 23607, (804) 247-2263.

Appendix C. Virginia Marine Resources Bulletin article on Wallop-Breaux reef study. Va. Mar. Res, Bull. 19(3) Fall 1987: 20-21. VA. Sea Grant College Program, VIMS

91

Artificial Reefs Enhance Recreational Fishing

Data amassed by Marine Ad­visory Services (MAS) is

providing a clearer picture of how artifi­cial reefs attract both fish and those who fish. The shldy. conducted over the past two years, is being used by the Virginia Marine Resources Commis­sion (VMRC) in evaluating its artificial reef program; the pwpose of the VMRC reef program is to enhance fish­ing, provide fishing in easy reach of anglers, and to diffuse the fishing ef­fort. so that no one particular area is rJShed too heavily. MAS' role has been to document the use of these sites, and also the species to be found there. Jon Lucy. MAS Marine Recreational Specialist, and Charles Barr, a graduate student. conducted the shldy at MAS.

Any number of structure types can be used in artificial reef construction. Above is an "igloo", a concrete structure weighing about 11,000 pounds.

Succinctly put, made-made or natural materials placed in salt or fresh water attract fish. The surface of the reef becomes colonized by encrusting plants and animals, which. in hlm, provide food for fish and other or­ganisms; the reef structure provides a point of orientation and a feeding sta­tion for larger predator fish.

2 Appendix o. Virginia Marine Resource Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 3, Winter 1989: 2-6, Virginia Sea Grant College Program, VIMS.

92

Rudimentary artificial reefs have gray b'Out, flo1D1der, spot, croaker, sea loosens, causing the load to shift during been used for centuries. However, the bass, tautog, bluefJSh, sea trout, and deployment. technology and the methods for testing weakfish. Offshore, there were some TJJCS, either lashed together with the effectiveness of these structures amberjack, Spanish mackerel and cable or embedded in concrete, were have rapidly evolved only since around sharks, the latter found especially near also used. Keeping these modules sta-the 19SO's. Japan has a long history of shipwrecks. tionary was the biggest challenge. In heavy seafood utili7.ation, and it comes Test results indicate that some this category, tires in concrete did the as no surprise that it would energetical- recreational fishermen do target artifi. besL The concrete base actually settled ly pursue reef construction and technol- cial reefs, but often the structures into the sediments and was, as a conse-ogy. The othei- major counlly involved served as an alternate fishing spoL quence, more stable. in artificial reef coostruction, the Anglers usually have special fishing A reef is often made up of many United States, had far less of a need to "holes", but stop by reefs when the structures; for instance, at Gwynn Is-be so systematic. usual spots are not as productive as nor- land there are six igloos, eight stacked

In the U.S. it was primarily private mal. tire units and 89 tire-in-concrete units. concerns-that is, individuals, There are a number of different ap- Funding for this study was from a sportfishing clubs and diving clubs- proaches to artificial reef construction; variety of sources, including Sport Fish

""" which initialed artificial reef construe- the main objective is to use a non-toxic, Restoration (Wallop Breaux), Sea lion in the pasL Building on the early durable structure which will be station- Grant and the Virginia Institute of efforts of the Tidewater Artificial Reef ary, and which will attract fish. Marine Science. Countless individuals, Association of Virginia (which dates Igloos weigh about 11,000 pounds organizations and businesses went out from 1959), the VMRC began looking and stand seven feet tall. Igloos proved of their way to help MAS. + into reef consttuction in the 1960's.

In the last two years, the Virginia MAS study focused on these sites (also see the map): Triangle Wrecks Reef, Light Tower Reef, Gwynn Island Test Reef, Cape Charles Test Reef, Ocean View Reef, and Parramore Test Reef and Parramore Reef. Researchers have also been interested in fishing results from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge tun-nel. Although it was obviously not in-tended as an artificial reef, the bridge tunnel, which spans the mouth of the Bay, acts as one.

~ In the MAS study, researchers

went directly to the source for their in-formation: the recreational fishermen. A data base of fishermen's catch sue-cess rates on major reef sites was created. This involved systematically collecting and analyzing catch and ef-fort data from recreational fishermen utilizing the reef sites, and recording

... j observations about how reefs are most

effectively fished. The core population .: of this study consisted of recreational - .t .. ~

fishermen who own private boats, and This attifical reef st!Ucture is a who fish one of the Virginia artificial stable, and they maintained their struc- concrete pipe stack. Artifidal reefs reef sites at least twice a season. Boat tural integrity through storms. serve as shelter for smaller fish, as owners were called in a random fashion Concrete pipe stacks were made of a point of orientation for fish, and to ensure a mix typical of the acbJal concrete pipes (inside diameter two - importantly for anglers-a feeding fJShing population. Of the 450-SOO feel) and were stacked in a 3-2-1 con- station for larger predator fish. f ishennen in the general survey, 20 figuration; a 7 /8" steel cable held them

""" were contacted each week. together and the total weight was close

Predictably, the reefs were eff ec- to an igloo: 12,000 pounds. These live in attracting fish and anglers. The modules dido 't appear to work as well species commonly found included: as igloos; the strapping sometimes

3 Appendix D (cont.)

93

I".':\

l"'.l\

!"'-I

4 ,...,

ARTIFICIAL REEF FISHING STUDY Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point. VA 23062

Funded by Sport Fish Restoration (Wallop-Breaux) Funds Through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission

77°0J' 76°0J'

ATLANTIC OCEAN

TUANCU! nEaS * IEEF

Ll<an' 'ro!Ea * REEF

36°00'

37°00'

ARTIFICIAL REEF AND WRECK STUDY SITES (Adapted from Feigenbaum and Blair 1986)

LOCATION LORAN BEARINGS REEF MATERIAL

PARRAMORE TEST REEF 41764.1/27125.4 Concrete Pipes 3.6 N.M. from Parramore 417 41.0/27126.0 Concrete ~loos Coast Guard Tower on 41747 .5/27125.2 Concrete pes Course 115 degrees T 417 44.0/27125.2 Tire Modules

41738.0/27126.3 Tire Modules

PARRAMORE REEF 417 46.3/27095.5 Vessel: Walter Hines Page (Buoy "R-10" - Liberty Ships) 417 44.0/27095.0 Vessel: Mona Island 8.7 N.M. from Parramore Coast Guard Tower on Course 102 degrees T

TRIANGLE WRECKS REEF 41391.4/27020.2 Vessel: Webster (GA Buoy - Liberty Ships) 41390. 7 /27020.5 Vessel: George P. Gamson 16 N.M. from Chesapeake Light 41389.6/27020.9 Vessel: James Haviland Station on Course 071 degrees T 41366.2/27018.9 Vessel: Edgar Clark

LIGHT TOWER REEF 41266.2/27103.0 f:/J' X 60' Orydock S.W. of Chesapeake Light Station

GWYNN ISLAND TEST REEF 41637 .2/27299.4 Tire Modules/Concrete Igloos 1.35 N.M. NE of "Hole-In-the-Wall"

CAPE CHARLES TEST REEF 41541.2/27231.0 Concrete Igloos N/NW of Entrance to Chenystone 41539.0/27231.2 Tire Modules Inlet Immediately east of Buoy ·c 12· 41539.4/27230.6 Concrete Pipes

OCEAN VIEW REEF 41259.8/27225.3 Concrete Igloos 900 yds. off Ocean View Beach 41259.7 /27225.0 Concrete Igloos W. of Little Creek Entrance

Appendix D {cont.) 94

Artificial Reef Catch Trends: The Survey Results

Virginia anglers fishing wrecks, artificial reefs, and other sttuc­

tmes principally targeted tautog, seabass and amberjack on offshore reefs, according to a study conducted by Marine Advisory Services of lhe Vir­ginia Institute of Marine Science. Tautog and seabass were also sought at sites in the lower Bay, while anglers found good quantities of spot and grey trout at Gwynn Island Reef.

Preliminary 1988 Results

Based upon preliminary analysis of the 1988 catch data compiled by fishennen utilizing offshore and Bay reef sites, the following observations can be made:

Offshore Reefs-Seabass catch rates, while still relatively low, were up somewhat on offshore reefs during 1988 compared to 1987, but ave,age weights of fJSh were still small (l.S-2 pounds); tautog calCb trends between years were mixed with slightly better catch rates and larger fJSh on the average occurring this season at the Tri­angle Wrecks, while the Light Tower Reef provided lower 1988. catch rates but also larger tautog than during 1987. The Light Tower Reef was rated by fishennen as fair to good.

Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tun­nel-Tautog catch rates were down and seabass catches about the same in 1988 compared to 1987; tautog kept by fJShennen in 1988 averaged about one pound less than those taken last year. While spot catch rates remained fairly constant between years and croaker catches were down in 1988, trout catch rates improved slightly between years, however the fJSh kept averaged only one pound. Striped bass catches during the summer drew new attention to the Bridge-Tunnel, and November catches were good for legal size fish (24 inch minimum).

Bay Reefs-In the lower Bay the Ocean View Reef received less atten­tion from fishermen than expected,

Spot

Apendix D (cont}

being used primarily as a stopping off point when other more favorite areas, e.g. the Bridge-Tunnel, were not as productive as anticipated. For the few fishennen targeting the site in the spring and again in the fall, some good flounder catches were made in the vicinity of the reef. Croaker catch rates were lower at the Ocean View Reef in 1988 than the previous year, but some good catches were recorded in Septem­ber. The mid-Bay Gwynn Island Reef provided similar catch rates for spot in both years from 1 une through Septem­ber and for croaker (July through Oc­tober). Spring provided beuer flounder and bluefish catches than last year, and fall (October-November) produced good catches of tautog. Tautog catch rates were three times those in 1987, resulting in fJSh averaging over five pounds each, twice the average size of fJSh reported at the Bridge-Tunnel.

1987 Results

Fishermen customarily fishing popular offshore wrecks and reefs early in the season reported poor catches of tautog and seabass, when catches were nonnally expected to be good. A cool spring and heavy freshwater runoff from Chesapeake Bay were felt to be

95

negatively influencing offshore wreck fJShing. The Virginia Saltwater F'.IShing Tournament Program reported a sig­nificant decline in citations for tautog during 1987, further substantiating low catches for the season.

Mean tautog catches ranged from 0.03 fJSh per rod hour at the Gwynn Is­land Reef to 1.4 fJSh per rod hour ~ the third island of the Bay Bridge Tunnel. No tautog trips were recorded in the spring and summer months for the Gwynn Island site, only for late Oc­tober and November. Comparable to tautog catches at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) third island, catches elsewhere along the Bridge Tunnel complex averaged 1.0 fJSh per rod hour. The Tugboat Wreck site off Cape Henry produced tautog catch rates of 1.3 fish per rod hour while the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef provided catch rates of 0.8 fJSh. The Triangle Wrecks exhibited low catch rates of 0.2 per tautog per rod hour, and a relatively high release rate of fish. The only location with a higher release rate was the Chesapeake Light Tower (the tower structure itself), where only half as many trips resulted in 82% of all tautog caught being released, the released fish weighing generally less than one pound.

5

Of tautog kept, average weighlS ranged from 2.0 pounm at lhe Gwynn Island site to 3.9 pounm on the Tri­angle Wreck-Liberty Ships.

Seabass catch rates also appeared somewhat low at the targeted fJShing areas. ranging from 0.1 fish per rod hour at the Gwynn Island site to 2.4 fish per rod hour at the Triangle Wreck­Liberty Ships. As with tautog, no seabass catches were recorded at the Oceanview Reef, but trips to the site recorded in the sampling effort oc­curred just before and after lhe site was enhanced with 40 large concrete igloos. Some tautog were caught on the site by a few anglers in the fall. In contrast to seabass catches on other sites, the Par­ramore Reef produced calChes of 10.1 fish per hour. Unfortunately. only four trips were recorded in the sampling ef­fort. making it impossible to know whether this catch rate was typical for the site over the entire season. Seabass catch rates at the Parramore Reef were two to ten times as great as those for tautog at the Gwynn Island Reef. the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef. Cape Henry Wrecks, Chesapeake Light Tower (structure only). and both por­tions of the Triangle Wrecks. At most fishing sites, more small sea~ were caught and released in comparison to tautog catches.

Most sea~ kept by flShermen weighed 1-2 pounds each. Combined catch rates of tautog and seabass ranged from 0.1 fish per rod hour at Gwynn Island. to 3.4 fl.sh per rod hour at the Triangle Wrecks. The Ocean­view and Pamunore Reef sites were the exception to these catch rates, exhibit­ing respeclive catches of zero and 10.1 tautog-seabass per rod hour.

For those fishing areas where tautog and seabass were among the principal targeted species for the entire fishing season-CBBT-thinl island; Cape Henry Wrecks; Tugboat Wreck; Chesapeake Light Tower Reef; Tri­angle Wrecks, all trips combined; and the Parramore Reef-die mean quality rating of the fishing experience for the trips reconled ranged from 2.0 to 3.7. Since tautog and sea~ were the most often sought species at these sites. the quality rating largely refleclS

Appendix D (cont) 6

fishennen •s satisfaction with catches of these species. (A rating of 1 indicates that the overall fishing experience for the day was rated "poor"; 2 indicates "fair .. ; 3, "good"; 4, "very good ... and s. "excellent".)

Spot, Croaker and Gray Trout Catches

As expected, spot, croaker and gray bOut were primarily caught only at wreck/reef fishing areas in the mouth of the Bay and further up the estuary. Catch rates for spot and croaker ranged from 0.0 to S.4 ftsh per rod hour. with trout exhibiting catches of 0.0 to 0.9 fish per rod hour. The lowest C8lCh rates for spot were at the CBBT (third island), where the fish was not actually targeted by anglers (only tautog. seabass and flollllder were targeted), and the Oceanview Reef. where none were caught The Gwynn Island Reef produced the highest mean catch rates for spot (2.9 ftsh per rod hour). While only one croaker was included in the CBBT (third island) catches, 125 fish were caught in two trips on the Ocean­view Reef, producing the highest catch rate for croaker among all areas from which trips were recorded.

Significant numbers of gray uout were recorded only in catches for trips made to non-third island areas of the CBBT and the Gwynn Island Reef. Only one or two bOut occurred in catches recorded at the Cape Henry Wrecks and CBBT (thinl island).

In comparing species preference patterns between the Gwynn Island Reef. Bridge Tunnel, and the Cape Henry Wrecks. fishermen targeted seabass or tauaog in over 60% of the trips and king mackerel in 33% of the trips to the latter site. In contrast. Gwynn Island reef fishermen targeted tautog in the spring (May) and fall (late October into November). then shifted their efforlS almost totally to spot, croaker and/or bOut from June through early October. Flounder were also sought by fishennen at the site during October, but no catches were recorded in trip interviews.

96

Bluefish, Flounder and Combined Catches of

Desirable Species

In light of their low catch rates. bluefish and flounder were almost in­cidental catches at those sites where catches occurred. although flounder were mentioned occasionally as tar­geted species for trips to the CBBT. Gwynn Island Reef and the Oceanview reef. Flounder were only recorded in catches for trips to the CBBT. the mean catch rates for the season being low (0.1 ftsh per rod hour). BlueflSh were never targeted by wreck flShennen in any of the trip interviews. A few bluefish were caught at the CBBT, the Chesapeake Light Tower Reef. the Cape Henry Wrecks, the Triangle Wrecks, and the Chesapeake Light Tower. with mean seasonal catch rates being 0.006 tQ 0.3 fish per rod hour. The fish were generally sought by fishermen targeting seabass, trout. or flounder at the CBBT: sea~ or tautog at the Light Tower Reef; king mackerel at the Cape Hemy Wrecks; and amberjack at the Triangle Wrecks, as well as at the Chesapeake Tower.

An examination of mean seasonal catch rates for all desirable (customari­ly edlole) species and flShing ex­perience catch ratings indicated that only about half of the wreck/reef sites produced catches considered "good". Species generally not considered desirable (and generally released) were small "sand sharks" and "spiny" dog­fish. most likely Squalus acanthias. The majority of the major f1Shing areas targeted by wreck/reef fishermen produced overall catch rates of 1.2-S.7 desirable fish per rod hour. The one e»-. ception was the Parramore Reef (10.3 f1Sh per rod hour). for which only four trips were recorded. The Gwynn Island Reef produced mean catch rates for desirable species of 3. 7 fish per rod hour. a rate only exceeded by the CBBT non- third island areas (S. 7 fish per rod hour). the Oceanview (S.4 fish per rod hour. based upon croaker caught during two trips). and the pre· viously mentioned Parramore Reef. <-

ARTIFICIAL REEF STUDY INTERVIEW LOG

DATE CAPT BOAT LENGTH ---- ----------- ------------ ----PRIVATE_CHARTER_PORT ___________ TARG SPEC __________ tl ANGLERS

H20 DEPTH §OTHER BOATS AREAl_...,,.. _________ T.EMP_(FT) _FISHING REEF ___________ _

TOTAL ti

RODS USED____fLHOOKS/ROD BAIT----------------------

TIME STARTED FISHING HOURS: ANCHORED DRIFT TROLL --------' ------ ---- ----STAGE OF TIDE (FLOOD.EBB.HI/LO SLACK) ----------------------------SE A COND'S./WATER CLARITY/CURRENTS: -----------------------

H20 DEPTH UOTHER BOATS AREA2.,_..-=----------T.EMP __ (FT) __ FISHING REEF ________ _

TOTAL fl RODS USED __ #HOOKS/ROD BAIT ____________________ _

TIME STARTED FISHING _______ HOURS ANCHORED ____ DRIFT ____ TROLL ___ _

STAGE OF TIDE (FLOOD.EBB.HI/LO SLACK) ----------------------------SE A COND'S./WATER CLARITY/CURRENTS:

SPECIES HOOKED # KEPT Sea bass Tautog Flounder Oyster toadfish Searobins Gray trout Spot Croaker Bluefish Amberjack King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel---­Shark: ---Other: __ _

----------------------AVG. WT. II RELEASED AVG. WT. CATCH/ AREA FISHED

FISHING STRATEGY EACH AREA:---------------------------

AREA A. FISHING EXPERIENCE QUALITY RATING: POOR () FAIR ( ) GOOD () VERY GOOD () EXCELLENT ()

AREA B. FISHING EXPERIENCE QUALITY RATING: POOR () FAIR ( ) GOOD ( ) VERY GOOD ( ) EXCELLENT ()

Appendix E. Telephone survey instrument for the 1987 and 1988 sampling programs.